Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Secondly, the Minimum Speech Test Battery (MSTB) has not been followed by the Medical Board.

HCJ&AAR,J Finally, there is a distinction between "a hearing aid" which is an instrumental one outside the ear, and "a cochlear implant"

which is a device implanted surgically inside the ear. According to the Guidelines, the perceptive deafness in both ears in which some improvement is possible by "a hearing aid" has to be 30 Decibel in speech frequencies of 1000-4000 Hz. However, cochlear implant is not a hearing aid. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have seen the distinction and should have set aside the impugned order.
On the other hand, Mr. Namavarapu Rajeswar Rao, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, submits that the first medical report does not indicate whether the test for hearing was done with or without the cochlear implant or not? Therefore, it had merely given a finding that "the deafness was 100%". More importantly, according to the medical examination conducted on 22.04.2016 by the AIIMS Doctors, it was discovered that her hearing ability was only 40 Decibel. Since the Guidelines require that the person should have a minimum hearing capacity of 30 Decibel, the petitioner-applicant falls short of 10 Decibel. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that since the petitioner-applicant does not have the minimum requirement of hearing, she has rightly been declared to be unfit for public employment.
Lastly, the Guidelines do not make a distinction between "a hearing aid" and "a cochlear implant". For, the words used are "hearing aid". Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not required to make that clear distinction, as it is not required by law itself. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
HCJ&AAR,J Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and considered the record.
A bare perusal of the first medical report does not reveal whether at the time of the medical report, the petitioner-applicant had cochlear implant or not? However, the second and the third medical reports clearly indicate that the petitioner-applicant is able to hear only upto 40 Decibel with cochlear implant and not beyond. Since the requirement of the Guidelines is that the person should be able to hear upto 30 Decibel, the petitioner-applicant is short of 10 Decibel. Therefore, both the Medical Boards were justified in concluding that the petitioner-applicant is unfit for public employment.