'OKEY' Is Informal Usage, Slangs Cannot Be Regarded As “Meaningful English Usage”: Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain was considering an academic issue concerning Combined Graduate Level Examination Tier-II, 2023 conducted by the SSC for recruitment to various civil posts.

The question in the examination was to choose as to how many 'meaningful words' could be formed from the O, K, E and Y. The respondents marked the answer as 'one' saying that the only meaningful word formed out of the letters O.K.E and Y would be 'YOKE'. The Single Judge held that as the obvious intent of the question was to exclude informal usages, colloquialism or slangs and only the words regarded as “meaningful English usage” would qualify. It held that the only meaningful word which could be formed from the letters O, K, E and Y was “YOKE” and 'OKEY' was merely a rare informal usage.

While confirming the decision of the Single Judge, the Court held that in cases, where the answer is demonstrably wrong and any reasonable man is able to rule out the correctness, the suggested answers of experts can be interfered with by the Courts. It was held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not answering incorrectly.

The Court further observed that in few rare and exceptional cases, the Courts can interfere even after the subject experts have determined the correctness or incorrectness of answers in the answer keys, however, to a 'limited extent'.

BACKGROUND

The Staff Selection Commission conducted Combined Graduate Level Examination3 Tier-II, 2023 for recruitment to various civil posts under the Union. The Respondent candidates challenged the correctness of the Answer key released by the Staff Selection Commission before the Single Judge. As per them, the answers to a few questions as mentioned in the answer key were incorrect. The Respondents contended that if the wrong answers were corrected, it would show a significant difference in their final results as they would secure 21 additional marks after the suggested corrections. The total number of the disputed questions was seven.

The dispute regarding the answer which the Single Judge permitted to be corrected was as to whether the word 'Okey' could be considered a meaningful word in context of forming a word out of the letters O, K, E and Y.

As per the answer key, the answer was 'two'. The SSC experts examined the answer and suggested that the words formed could be 'YOKE' and 'OKEY'. They asserted that it was an informal variation of “OKAY” used “in a casual context”.

The Single Judge ruled out the correctness of the answer as the obvious intent of the question was to exclude informal usages, colloquialism or slangs and only the words regarded as “meaningful English usage” would qualify. It held that the only meaningful word which could be formed from the letters O, K, E and Y was “YOKE” and 'OKEY' was merely a rare informal usage.

Accordingly, the Single Judge rejected the challenge to the other 6 questions, permitting change in the answer to one question only.

Aggrieved by the Order dated 16 February 2024, the Staff Selection Commission filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.

Findings of the Court:

Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI, the Court questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters concerning recruitment to posts under Union. It was held that as per Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, High Court could not be the Court of first instance in such cases and matters related to recruitment shall be entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The Court held that by the aforesaid reason, the petition deserved dismissal, however, it could not do so because on 27.05.2024, a Coordinate Division Bench of the Court dismissed the LPA filed by respondents, on merits. Moreover, some Special Leave Petitions were also filed by a few candidates before the Apex Court, in which notices were already issued.

Hence, the Court held that although the Court was not to be approached in cases of recruitment as the Tribunal was the Court of first instance but at the same time, judicial review could not entirely be ousted in cases involving such challenges. Holding that there may be cases where the answers to questions are manifestly incorrect, the Court observed that in such situations, the students could not suffer merely because of an incorrect answer suggested by the subject experts. The Bench observed that students in such cases must be ensured substantial justice.

Citing the decision taken in Om Prakash Verma v National Testing Agency and several other judgements including Kanpur University v Samir Gupta, Manish Ujwal v Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Guru Nanak Dev University v Saumil Garg H.P. Public Service Commission v Mukesh Thakur , Rajesh Kumar v State of Bihar etc., the Bench laid down certain conclusive factors that need to be taken into consideration while deciding such matters.

• The Courts cannot have a 'hands-off' approach in cases where the subject experts have examined the questions in dispute.
• 'Circumspection' is the general rule, especially where experts have considered the objections raised to the answer key.
• While the Court examines the correctness of answers in dispute, it can also refer to authoritative textbooks on the subject.
• In cases, where the answer is demonstrably wrong and any reasonable man is able to rule out the correctness, the suggested answers of experts can be interfered with by the Courts. It would be unfair to penalise the students for not answering incorrectly.
• It would be unfair and a serious illegality on part of Courts to avoid interfering in cases, where an answer provided in the answer key is clearly incorrect.
• If a student attempts an unacceptably vague question, the marks assigned to such a question should be deleted out of the total marks.
• Even in cases where numerous answers are incorrect as per the answer keys, revaluation on the basis of corrected answers should be preferred over cancellation and re-holding of the examination.
• The Courts should interfere only in “rare and exceptional cases”, and to a “very limited extent”.
• In the event of doubt, the benefit of doubt would go to the examining authority, not to the candidate.
• Relief must be extended to all the candidates facing issues concerning the answers in dispute and not only the ones approaching Courts.
• The Court needs to be cautious in its approach concerning the impact the decision of the Court may have on the students who attempt the disputes questions and whose answers are correct as per the answer keys.

As far as the answer in dispute was concerned, the Court found substance in the observations of the Single Judge. Validating the decision of the Single Judge, the Bench held that it would be unjust to treat the answer of the candidate incorrect, in case he answered in a manner which indicated that the only meaningful word derived from the letters O, K, E and Y was 'YOKE'.

Additionally, the Court held that questions having serious implications on the candidates who appear in examinations should be crafted 'sensitively and sensibly'. The Bench expressed astonishment over whether it was fair to pose such a question to candidates and test their competence and ability to join civil posts, based on whether they were able to answer if 'OKEY' was a meaningful word.

Making these observations, the Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge an dismissed the appeal of the SSC.

Case Title: STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR versus SHUBHAM PAL ANR ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1142

Counsel for Appellants: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati and Mr. Ashesh Chaudhary, Advs.

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Adv.

Click here to download Judgement/Order