02 February,2018 10:30 AM IST | Mumbai | A Correspondent
Representation pic
The Bombay High Court yesterday came to the aid of a Solapur resident, whose job claim was rejected by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) because he had a tattoo on his forearm. A division bench of justices R M Borde and Rajesh Ketkar held that as the tattoo would not interfere with the petitioner's official duties, and as he had met all other eligibility criteria, the CISF authorities must make an exception to their rules for him.
Also, as the tattoo was of a religious symbol, the bench held that petitioner Shridhar Pakhare's religious sentiments must be respected. Pakhare had applied for the post of constable-cum-driver with the CISF. While he cleared the requisite test and medical examination, he was denied the job on account of a tattoo on his right forearm. As per CISF rules, tattoos are not allowed.
He moved the court for relief, arguing that as the Army makes exception for those who have tattoos depicting religious symbols, the CISF be directed to do the same. He also pointed out that a recent CISF circular calling for applications for the post of senior inspector which said that tattoos of religious symbols were permissible if they were small in size.
ALSO READ
After delay, Trump signs agreement with Biden White House to begin formal transition handoff
Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah agree to ceasefire to end nearly 14 months of fighting
Brazil's Bolsonaro planned and participated in 2022 coup plot, unsealed police report says
Blast rocks Beirut moments after Biden announces Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire
Biden calls Israel and Hezbollah ceasefire 'good news' as sides come to terms to pause fighting
The CISF's decision holding him unfit for employment was "unreasonable and tended to interfere with his religious sentiments", the petition said. Agreeing with his contention, the bench said, "The religious sentiments of a citizen shall have to be given a due weightage and especially if while making recruitment to a higher post such exceptions are made, there was no reason for the employer to not apply the same parameters for the petitioner."
Download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get updates on all the latest and trending stories on the go