Alternate commonly used spellings in Hindi stenography skill tests must be accepted as correct under evaluation guidelines.

The Respondents, Stenographers Grade ‘D’ in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS), appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2020-2022 for promotion to Grade ‘C’

They were disqualified after the stenography skill test on the grounds that their mistakes exceeded the permissible limit

The Respondents challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that 18 specific words marked as "errors" were actually correct alternate spellings or forms recognized by official authorities, such as the Central Hindi Directorate and various government dictionaries

The CAT ruled in favor of the Respondents in OA 5014/2024

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) filed this writ petition assailing the CAT's judgment

1. Whether the alternate spellings and punctuation (hyphens) used by the Respondents in the Hindi Stenography Skill Test should be treated as correct under the SSC’s evaluation guidelines

2. Whether the Court should interfere with the Tribunal's findings in the absence of expert evidence or a specific rebuttal by the Petitioner regarding the linguistic validity of the disputed words

The Court applied the Petitioner’s own evaluation guidelines for stenography skill tests, which state that words with more than one acceptable form or spelling shall not be treated as errors

It relied on the standardization of Devanagari script and Hindi spelling as prescribed in the book 'Devanagari Lipi evam Hindi Vartani ka Manakikaran' issued by the Central Hindi Directorate, Ministry of Education

The Court also observed the procedural principle that facts pleaded in an Original Application (OA) which are not specifically traversed or denied in a counter-affidavit are deemed admitted

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s own guidelines explicitly permit alternate spellings (e.g., "Honourable" vs "Hon’ble") and extend this rule to Hindi stenography

The Respondents provided exhaustive evidence from authoritative sources, including the Central Hindi Training Institute and the President of India’s speeches, to prove that their transcriptions (such as 'गई' for 'गयी' and the use of hyphens in 'साथ-ही-साथ') were linguistically correct

The Court highlighted that the Petitioner failed to traverse these specific claims in their counter-affidavit before the Tribunal

Furthermore, despite claiming that experts had checked the papers, the Petitioner failed to produce any expert report to justify the disqualifications

Given that the promotion was a standard departmental movement (Grade D to C) and not an "extraordinary skill" post, the Court found no reason to overturn the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the correctness of the words

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, upholding the Tribunal's order

The relief was restricted specifically to the Respondents who had approached the Tribunal