Nomination of SSB exam candidates with religious tattoos

The Allahabad High Court directed the central government to comply with its order of March 7, 2022 in which it ordered the UOI and the SSB to consider the application of 3 candidates for the SSB examination who were refused employment due to certain tattoos on a certain part of their hands (forearm), in case they remove such a tattoo.

On March 7, 2022, the headquarters of Judge Siddhartha Varma directed the Center and the SSB that if the petitioners’ tattoos were removed, that particular disability could not be considered a barrier to selection for the ministerial posts for which the petitioners had applied.

Now when the said order was not complied with within the stipulated 2 months, two of the petitioners entered the instant contempt plea under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act for punishing the opposing party for willful disobedience to the order and judgment of the Court.

It was alleged that the plaintiff had filed the brief plea, which was granted and the copy of the said order was served on the opposing party, but the said instruction had not been complied with by the opposing party to date.

After hearing the arguments raised by the Petitioners in this contempt plea, the Court was prima facie of the opinion that punishing the opposing party was justified for willful disobedience to the judgment and order rendered in the Written Motion. aforementioned.

However, the Court gave no notice to the opposing party and instead granted it an additional two months to comply with the order. The Court further ordered the petitioner to provide a postage-paid registered envelope addressed to the opposing party and another pre-addressed envelope to the office within two weeks of today.

The opposing party must comply with the instructions of the district court and notify the plaintiff of the order by means of the return envelope within one week. In the event that the opposing party does not comply with the order, it would be open to the applicant to seize this court again,“, further ordered the Court.

In view of the above observations, the application was finally closed.

Case Title – Avneesh Kumar and another c. Dr. Sujoy Lal Thaosen, director and 2 others [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. – 4616 of 2022]

Case quote: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 391

Click here to read/download the order

Comments are closed.