JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. N.N. Jha, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Ms. B. Sarma, the learned CGC appearing for all the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) on being declared unfit for having a tattoo in his right forearm. The petitioner responded to the advertisement issued by the competent authority for the post in question and on making such application, he was called for participating in the recruitment process by placing him at serial No.246 in the call letter. However, when the petitioner was medically examined, a tattoo was found on his right forearm and for this reason, he was rejected and declared medically unfit. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner sought for a review of his medical examination. The petitioner got himself examined by an Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery, MMCH Hospital, Guwahati. On such examination, he gave an opinion that the tattoo on the petitioner’s right forearm was temporary and can be removed with laser treatment. With the said opinion, the petitioner faced the Medical Review Board. The Medical Review Board however referred him to an empanelled hospital of the CISF i.e., Apollo VSR Hospital. The Doctor concerned on examining him came to a finding that the petitioner had undergone two sessions of laser treatment for removal of his tattoo but the same was still visible. It was further opined that a few more laser treatment would be required to completely remove the tattoo. 4. The Review Medical Board upon considering the opinion of the Doctor of Apollo Hospital as well as earlier opinion given by the Medical Officer concerned found the petitioner unfit for the post and the following remarks were made:- “(a) UNFIT on account of: Tattoo Rt. Forearm, inner aspect. (partially removed) [w.e.f-FileNo.1-45020/7/2012/Pers-IIMHAdt-19.07.2016].” 5. Appearing for the writ petitioner Mr. N.N. Jha, the learned counsel submits that the tattoo on the right forearm of the writ petitioner is only temporary as opined by the Medical Officer concerned. He submits that the same can be removed by laser treatment. He submits that the Doctor at Apollo VSR Hospital also opined that the tattoo had been partially removed after two laser sessions and with a few more sessions, the same can be removed completely. He submits that the same can be removed by laser treatment. He submits that the Doctor at Apollo VSR Hospital also opined that the tattoo had been partially removed after two laser sessions and with a few more sessions, the same can be removed completely. He therefore submits that it is clear that the tattoo of the petitioner is not a permanent one and he was wrongly declared medically unfit in the selection process and by the Review Medical Board. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the Review Medical Board while declaring the petitioner unfit for the post of Constable (Driver) quoted the policy for recruitment of candidates in organizations under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The quoted policy was communicated to the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide communication dated 19.07.2016. In the said policy, candidates having small engraved tattoo on the inner face of the arm which is a religious symbol were permitted to be enrolled but candidates having permanent tattoo in any other parts of the body were debarred from being recruited. The learned counsel therefore submits that the exception clause in the policy clearly covers the case of the petitioner as the tattoo on his right forearm was only a small engraved religious symbol. 7. Mr. N.N. Jha submits that the rejection of the petitioner in the selection process on account of being medically unfit cannot be sustained on two grounds. Firstly, the tattoo on the petitioner is not a permanent one and secondly, he is covered by the relaxation clause provided in the policy followed by the Ministry of Home Affairs under which, the CISF Organization amongst other paramilitary forces function. He also submits that in fact the tattoo in the right forearm of the writ petitioner has since been completely removed. Under the circumstances, this Court may be pleased to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent authorities rejecting his candidature. 8. Ms. B. Sarma, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the advertisement issued for the post of Constable (Driver) more particularly, at Clause-I(iii) clearly stipulates that candidates having a permanent tattoo on any parts of the body will be debarred from being recruited in the CISF. 8. Ms. B. Sarma, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the advertisement issued for the post of Constable (Driver) more particularly, at Clause-I(iii) clearly stipulates that candidates having a permanent tattoo on any parts of the body will be debarred from being recruited in the CISF. Despite the restrictions, the writ petitioner participated at his own risk and therefore, with the tattoo in his right forearm being found during his medical examination, he was rightly rejected from being enrolled. She further submits that as permissible under the guidelines, the petitioner has the right to ask for a review on the findings of the Medical examination and therefore, when he asked for it, it was granted to him. When the Review Medical Board examined him after more than 2 ½ months from his first medical examination, he was referred to Apollo VSR Hospital for opinion and thereafter, the Medical Review Board after examining the entire materials thoroughly still found him to be medically unfit. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the decision taken by the authorities concerned. 9. The learned counsel in this connection also refers to the opinion of the Medical Officer concerned, which is annexed as Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents. She submits that it can be seen that the petitioner had undergone two laser sessions for removal of the tattoo but the same was still visible. It was opined that he would require a few more sessions to completely remove the tattoo. Therefore, it is clear from the nature of the tattoo that it is a permanent one. She also submits that the petitioner had enough time before being examined by the Review Medical Board to remove the tattoo completely. However, he failed to get it removed completely and since the tattoo was still visible, he was rightly rejected by the Review Medical Board. 10. She also submits that the petitioner had enough time before being examined by the Review Medical Board to remove the tattoo completely. However, he failed to get it removed completely and since the tattoo was still visible, he was rightly rejected by the Review Medical Board. 10. The learned counsel by further referring to the policy communicated on 19.07.2016 by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Chairman of Staff Selection Commission more particularly at paragraph No. 4 which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-8 submits that in order to avoid litigation, it was decided to insert a clause in all recruitment notice issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SCC) and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) that candidates having tattoo found in any parts of their body will be debarred from recruitment in Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF) and Armed Forces (AF). Likewise, in the advertisement concerned, a clear stipulation was also made. She further submits that in the same communication dated 19.07.2016 at paragraph No. 2, provided that the candidature for appointment to the post concerned are to be only considered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the recruitment notice as observed and directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in a case of similar nature. Thus, the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. 11. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels from the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. The advertisement that was issued for the post of Constable (Driver) invariably provides that the persons having permanent tattoo on any parts of the body will be debarred from recruitment in the CISF. It may also be noticed that the Medical Certificate produced by the petitioner prior to his appearance before the Review Medical Board certified that the tattoo on the writ petitioner was a temporary tattoo and it could be removed after laser treatment. Likewise on being referred by the Review Medical Board, the Medical Officer of Apollo Hospital also opined that the petitioner had undergone two laser sittings to remove the tattoo but however, the same was still visible and that in order to remove the tattoo completely, a few more sittings would be required. Likewise on being referred by the Review Medical Board, the Medical Officer of Apollo Hospital also opined that the petitioner had undergone two laser sittings to remove the tattoo but however, the same was still visible and that in order to remove the tattoo completely, a few more sittings would be required. However, irrespective of the question as to whether the tattoo in the right forearm of the writ petitioner was a permanent tattoo or a temporary tattoo, what can be noticed is that there is a policy communicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which provides that a candidate having small engraved tattoo of religious symbol on inner face of the arm was permitted to be enrolled. Relevant portion of the policy guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs may be extracted below for ready perusal:- “This Ministry vide UO dated 16.11.2012 (copy enclosed) has issued instructions to all CAPFs and directed to adhere the same while conducting the recruitments: (i) Any candidates with a small engraving/tattoo name or religious symbol on the inner face of the arms or hands is permitted for enrolment. (ii) Candidates having permanent tattoo on any other part of the body be debarred for recruitment in CAPFs & AR.” 12. From what has been extracted above, it may be seen that although, the advertisement to the post of question did not mention about the exemption that was available in certain cases but nevertheless, the guidelines or the policy communicated to the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission on 19.07.2017 provides for the same. Moreover, the same has also been clearly referred to in the medical opinion of the Review Medical Board, which declared the petitioner to be medically unfit. The fact that the tattoo in the right forearm of the writ petition was partially removed after two laser sittings would go to show the temporary nature of the tattoo. The High Court of Bombay in its judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 in WP(C)10026/2017 (Shridhar Mahadeo Pakhare Vs. Union of India & 5 Ors.) as referred to by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner held that since the petitioner therein had removed the tattoo in his forearm upto 90% and the same being a religious symbol, he should be reconsidered for appointment. On perusing the judgment, I find that the facts as well as the issue involved are similar to the present case. On perusing the judgment, I find that the facts as well as the issue involved are similar to the present case. The only difference is that in the referred case, a distinction was sought to be drawn amongst the ranks in the CISF organization on the applicability of the exception clause on tattoo. Though, the said decision may not be binding upon this Court but however, I do not see as to why a similar view cannot be taken in the present case as well. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner has succeeded in making out a case and the respondent authorities will be required to reconsider his case. 14. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for his appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) under the CISF and while doing so, the initial medical opinion rendered against him, including the one made by the Review Medical Board shall not be an impediment for appointing him to the post if he is otherwise found fit. The exercise as directed shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No cost.