Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Audiometry in Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr vs Hari Sankar on 26 May, 2025Matching Fragments
4. The Review Medical Board (RME), on 25.01.2024, after conducting an Audiometry Test on 21.01.2024, declared the respondent 'unfit' for appointment on the grounds of "Moderate SN Hearing loss Lt. ear" and "Perforated Tympanic membrane".
5. The respondent, before the learned Tribunal, claimed to have got himself treated and checked by a medical practitioner on 23.02.2024, who found the respondent's TM membrane to be intact and that he was fit to join his duties, which led to the filing of the above O.A.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opinion of the DME Board and the RME Board have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal merely on the basis that other medical institutions have given divergent opinions. He submits that the same cannot be a ground for disregarding the opinions of the DME Board and the RME Board, especially when the Audiometry Test was conducted.
13. The respondent thereafter applied for the RME, and was referred for an examination of his ear by way of an Investigation Audiometry, advised by the RME Board on 21.01.2024. In such audiometry investigation, on the same day itself, the respondent was found to have "Moderate S.N. Hearing Loss" in his left ear. Based on this report, the RME declared the respondent unfit for appointment by the Report dated 25.01.2024, on the following grounds:
"(1) Moderate SN Hearing loss Lt. ear (2) Perforated Tympanic membrane"
11. In the present case, solely based on the Audiometry Report, the respondent could not have been declared medically 'unfit' by the RME, without a Specialist opinion thereon.
12. In Staff Selection Commission v. Aman Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7600, this Court, while summarizing the principles that would be applicable in cases of recruitment to disciplined Forces and medical standards applicable thereto, has, inter alia, opined that where the DME or the RME does not contain a domain expert and the candidate is referred to a specialist, the candidate cannot be declared unfit for appointment without such an expert report. We quote the relevant guidelines laid down by this Court, as under: