LPA No. 49/2024 Page 1 of 4 S.No.33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court: Case No: LPA No. 49/2024 CM No. 1366/2024 CM No. 1367/2024 Uploaded on: 14.11.2025 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, New Delhi. 3. Director Staff Selection, Commission Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 4. Regional Director Staff Selection Commission (NWR) Block No.3, Gr. Floor, Block No.3, Gr. Floor,Kendriya Sadan, Sector-09,Ground Floor, Chandigarh-160 017. 5. Deputy Regional, Director Staff Selection Commission (NWR) Block Gr. Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sector-09, Ground Floor, Chandigarh-160 017. 6. Director General, Central Reserve Police (CRPF), Block No.1 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 7. Inspector General of Police (IGP), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Bantalab, Jammu. 8. Inspector General (IG), Border Security Force (BSF), Paloura Camp, Jammu. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate LPA No. 49/2024 Page 2 of 4 v/s 1. Rakesh Kumar age 32 years, S/O Shri Janak Raj, R/O Village Pindi Charkan Kalan, Tehsil Arnia, District Jammu. 2. Lekh Raj, age 34 years, S/O Shish Paul, R/O Village Chohala, Tehsil R.S.Pura, District Jammu. 3. Sat Paul, age 28 years, S/O mani Ram,R/O Village Jourian, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu. 4. Varun Raj, age 28 years, S/O Bharat Bhushan, R/O Village Jourian, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu. …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rajesh Bhushan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 12.11.2025 \ 1. Learned writ Court vide its judgment dated 10.10.2023 directed the appellants-writ respondents to again convene the Medical Board for re-examination of the respondents-writ petitioners and offer them appointment, if they are found fit to perform the duties of Constable GD in terms of the revised guidelines of 2015. The exercise was to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment by the appellants-writ respondents. 2. Being aggrieved of the judgment, this intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellants-writ respondents on the ground that the learned Writ Court failed to consider that the policy does not permit LPA No. 49/2024 Page 3 of 4 even a post-operative case of tattoo removal for employment as Constable. Consequently, the Medical Board/Review Medical Board was correct in deeming the respondents-writ petitioners unfit due to the tattoo on the saluting arm. Specifically, the appellants-writ respondents contend that the learned Writ Court should not have interfered with the policy decision of the Government/Ministry of Home Affairs, as the decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 4. Pursuant to the specific query made by this Court, as to whether the judgment passed in the case titled Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, relied upon by the learned writ Court while rendering the judgment impugned, has been assailed or implemented, Mr. Sandeep Gupta, learned CGSC has submitted that in compliance to the directions issued by the learned writ Court in SWP No. 2108/2016 titled >Sunil Kumar Vs. Union of India and others’, the Review Medical Examination of Sunil Kumar was conducted on 25.05.2023 at BSF Hospital, Frontier HQ BSF Jammu, wherein he was found <Unfit=. In support of his submissions, he has produced the communication No. 4860/Estt-IV/FtrJmu/BSF/2017/9733-34 dated 11.11.2025, which is taken on record. 5. As the learned Writ Court has passed the impugned judgment by placing reliance upon the decision rendered in Sunil Kumar vs. Union of India and others, which has already been complied with by the appellants–writ respondents, we find no ground to show indulgence, as the appellants–writ respondents cannot be permitted to adopt a LPA No. 49/2024 Page 4 of 4 <policy of pick and choose= while implementing the directions of the Court issued under similar circumstances. 6. Viewed thus, we find no good reason to show indulgence. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed along with connected CM(s), if any. The appellants-writ respondents shall comply with the judgment passed by the learned writ Court without any fail. (Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli) Judge Chief Justice Jammu 12.11.2025 Madan Verma-Secy Whether order is speaking? Yes. Whether order is reportable? No. MADAN LAL VERMA 2025.11.14 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document