Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed by Staff Service Commission (SSC) (appellants) challenging the judgment dated 16-02-2024, passed by a Single Judge in a petition wherein a candidate (respondent) had contested the accuracy of the final Answer Key for the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) Tier-II, 2023, leading to a partial ruling in their favor regarding one of the disputed questions. A division bench of C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ., upheld the impugned order and chose not to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Single Judge insofar as it has allowed the challenge raised by the respondent regarding Question ID X .
The case centers around a civil services examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), wherein the respondent, a candidate, challenged the correctness of the answer key for one of the questions in the exam. The disputed question, Question ID X, required candidates to identify how many meaningful English words could be formed using the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth letters of the word “HOCKEY”. The final answer key, released by the SSC, declared the correct answer to be “two” (Option 1), while the respondent contended that the correct answer was “one” (Option 2). Specifically, the SSC claimed that two words, “YOKE” and “OKEY,” were valid, whereas the respondent argued that only “YOKE” qualified as a meaningful English word.
The respondent filed the petition after the SSC’s final answer key indicated “two” as the correct answer, despite the respondent’s belief that only one meaningful word could be formed. The SSC defended its position by citing an analysis from subject matter experts (SMEs), which recognized both “YOKE” and “OKEY” as valid words. “OKEY,” according to the SSC, was an informal variation of “OKAY” and the name of a Turkish tile-based game. The respondent, however, disputed the meaningfulness of “OKEY” in the context of the exam’s requirement for “meaningful English words,” leading to the petition before the Single Judge, who ultimately sided with the respondent.
The SSC relied on the opinion of its subject matter experts, who provided a detailed analysis suggesting that both “YOKE” and “OKEY” were acceptable answers. “YOKE” was recognized as a traditional English word meaning a wooden beam used between animals, while “OKEY” was presented as a less common variant of “OKAY,” used in informal contexts. Additionally, the SSC referred to the use of “OKEY” in the context of the Turkish game “Okey.”
The respondent argued that the exam specifically asked for “meaningful English words,” and “OKEY” did not meet this requirement. They pointed out that “OKEY” was not a meaningful word in the English language, especially when considered in isolation. The respondent further argued that the use of “OKEY” as a game title did not make it a meaningful word, and the informal usage of “OKEY” as a variant of “OKAY” was inappropriate for this formal context.
The Court, while acknowledging the deference generally afforded to answer keys, clarified that this deference does not extend to cases where the answer is “obviously incorrect” and would result in injustice. In such cases, the judiciary is obligated to intervene.
The Single Judge, after examining the expert analysis, rejected the inclusion of “OKEY” as a meaningful English word. He reasoned that the word “OKEY” as referenced by the SSC experts was either used as part of a Turkish game or as a rare, informal variation of “OKAY” that was not meaningful in the context of the question. The Court concluded that the question specifically required “meaningful English words,” and neither the Turkish game reference nor the informal slang meaning sufficed. Therefore, the Court ruled that the only valid word that could be formed was “YOKE,” and the correct answer was indeed “one.”
The Division Bench upheld the findings of the Single Judge and observed that while “YOKE” was an undisputed word, “OKEY” could not be considered a meaningful English word for several reasons. First, “OKEY” as part of a Turkish game does not qualify as meaningful usage in English. Second, even though “OKEY” might appear informally in certain contexts, it could not reasonably be expected of candidates in an English language examination to treat it as a valid word. The Court also noted that testing candidates on such obscure usage was unfair and did not serve the purpose of evaluating their competency for civil services.
Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal and held that the correct answer to Question ID X was “one,” meaning that only the word “YOKE” could be considered valid. The Bench emphasized that in cases where exam questions involve subjective analysis or obscure meanings, fairness must prevail, and candidates should not be penalized for being unfamiliar with rare or informal usages of words.
The Court also made a broader observation regarding the importance of carefully crafting examination questions to ensure clarity and fairness, particularly when such exams have significant implications for the candidates’ careers. The appeal was dismissed with no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower court.
[SSC v. Shubham Pal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7144, decided on 07-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati and Mr. Ashesh Chaudhary, Advocates for appellants
Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate for respondents
