Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Neha Veeravalli vs Dopt on 24 December, 2019
RS DA No.620/0295/2018
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
0.A. No, 020/00295/2018
Date of Order: 24.12.2019
Between:
Neha Veeravalll,
See D/o Sri V..Sasi Kumar,
3s ReeS '\Aged 26 years, Occ : Bank Employee,
} r/o Flat No.303, Pranathi Classic
Satavahana Nagar, Kurmannapaiem,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh ~ 530 046. . Applicant
And
we 1. Union Public Service Cammission,
_ Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-- 116 069.
2. Union of india, Rep. by the Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Central Standing Medical Board,
Safdarjung Hospital,
New Delhi - 110 029.
Represented by its Chairman.
4. All india Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)},
Rep. by its Secretary, Delhi.
5. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Rep. by its Secretary, Nirman Bhavan,
'C' Wing, New Delhi - 110 001, .. Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ws Ms.Dalia Pasaari for
Mr Tarun GReddy, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents --.. Mrs. K.Rajitha, Sr.CGSC
Mr.M.Nagaraju, S.C. for UPSC
é GA No.020/0295/2018
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. BV. Sudhakar, Member {Admn.}
ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman} The applicant tock part in the Civil Services examinations in the year 2014. She cleared preliminary and main examination and was also called for personality test. She was assigned the rank of 1221. As required under the prescribed procedure, she was sent for medical examination. Though various other parameters were found to be in order and found satisfactory, the team of doctors found that her hearing capacity as so low, that she is unfit for any public service. Not satisfied with that, the applicant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Medical Board at Safdurjung Hospital was constituted. The Board in turn invited opinion on certain aspects from All india Medical Sciences (AIMS) and ultimately in their ~ report dated 17.07.2015 found that the applicant is not fit for public employment.
2, The applicant fled OA.1060/2015 before this Tribunal challenging the view expressed by the Medical Board. The OA was disposed of on 06.04.2016 directing the respondents to reconduct the examination by the medical board. in compliance with the same, the applicant was subjected to remedical examination by the Appellate 3 OA No.020/0295/2018 . Medical Board. Through their letter dated 22.04.2016 the Appella See Medical Board declared the applicant as unfit for public employment.
3. This OA is filed challenging the order dated 28.06.2016 and for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for Wa ag See Se 4 Q\allotment to the concerned Civil Services. 4, The applicant contends that at the appellate stage, the All india Institute of Medical Sciences has opined that her hearing capacity Is within the limits of banana curve and that she is capable of performing her duties. She states that there is absolutely no basis for the Appellate Medical Board to take the view that she is not fit. It is stated that the subsequent medical opinion expressed by the Appellate medical board is not supported by any valid reasons and it is contrary to the parameters stipulated in various relevant documents.
5. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. [tis stated that the competent medical board has declared the applicant as unfit for public services and ft is not permissible to substitute the opinion of such experts. it is also stated that the Appellate Medical Board has examined the applicant once again, in compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and since It has reiterated its earlier view, no relief can be granted to the applicant.
&. Heard Ms.Dalia Pasaari representing Mr Tarun G Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Rajitha, learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel for the respondents. 4 OA No.020/0295/2018
7. The applicant is stated to have suffered fram hearing problefn z at her childhood, It is stated that on account of the implant of a devic she has regained the hearing capacity. She applied in the category of , hearing handicapped to the Al India Services and has cleared the ey Preliminary and main examinations. After the personality test, she was . lassigned the rank of 1221. With that rank, she was entitled to be allocated to one service or the other.
8. As a part of the prescribed procedure, the UPSC refers all the enlisted candidates, particularly thase who claimed the benefit of reservation of Physically Handicapped, to medical examination. They got SS the Boards constituted in the Government hospitals. The medical board at Gurgovind Singh haspital examined the applicant and expressed its views as under :
"HH deaf 100%. Candidate is not able to communicate with implant."
9. The disability of the applicant was treated as 100% and accordingly she was found unfit for public employment. There exists a provision for appeal. On an appeal preferred by the applicant herein, she was referred to Appellate Medical Soard at Safardarjung hospital, New Dethi. tt is stated that since a particular device was not available in that hospital, they sought the opinion of the experts of the AIMS and ultimately they submitted their report on 17.07.2015, which reads as under :
"A meeting was held under the Chairmanship of HOD, ENT, SIH, After examination & fresh investigations it was found that the 5 O& No.020/0295/2018 candidate, Neha Veeravalli 23 yrs F wes unfit for the fob as per the Gazette Notification No.t52. Dtd 19/06/2014 pg.220. Copy attached,"
10. It is at this stage, that the applicant filed OA 1060/2015 "3 before this Tribunal. in compliance of the orders passed therein, a further com.
Sf test was conducted by the same Medical Board. A detailed order was oa :
passed on 28.06.2016. The result of the examination by the Appellate Medical Board is contained in para-? and 8 of the said order :
ss mee Whereas, reference was made to Appellate Board, Safdurfung Hospital, one of the Respandents in this OA. Safdurfuag Hospital vide letter dated 22.04.2016 informed as followed {copy enclosed) "Ms Neho Veeravalll was examined in this hospital and she was totally deaf, She was not able to communicate with cochlear implant on in this hospital as per record. Now Ms. Neha Veeravalll has undergone medical examination where her audiometry threshold was 40 d8 with cochlear implant insitu.
As per the gazette notification page no.220 para 15 {point mo.2) says:
"Paint perceptive Fit in ! No. deafness in respect of both ears in both which some technical | improvement is end ofan possible by @ technical hearing aid jobs if the deafness 8 up fe 30 'decibel in No & OS No.020/0298/2018 speech frequencies af 7o00- 4000 Hz Since the hearing is 10 d8 short of 30 d8 hearing thresheld, candidate is unfit as per the gazette notification mentioned above."
& Whereas, as per the provisions af CSE Rule 2014, 'C' he.
communication a physical requirement, among others, that is must for service olocation ta any of the services for physicaily handicap ~ condidates. The respondent no3 ie Seafdurfung Hospital Aas communicated to respondent no.g Le. DoPT that Ms Neha Veeravalli is not able ta communicate and declared unfit far the job as per above mentioned gazette notification dated 19.06.2014."
11. {tis thus evident that the applicant was not found fit for the All India Services. We do sympathize with the applicant, who has come up to the stage of personality test by overcoming the deficiency which occurred to her at a very young age. It is rather unfortunate, that she was not having the hearing capacity up to the required level. The Medical Board took the view that the applicant is not fit for public employment.
The Appellate Medical Board agreed with the same view.
12. Normally, the Court or Tribunal would not interfere with the findings recorded by the expert agencies or with the reports expressed by the agencies like Appellate Medical Board. in the instant case, aut of concern for the career of the applicant, this Tribunal directed further examination. Unfortunately the same results ensued. The Courts and TRS LR EEE ML:
na, Ae yy # eet ? OA No.020/0295/2018 Tribunals would be loath to interfere with the views expressed by the expert bodies and we do not find any merit in the OA.
13. The GA is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to