Supreme Court Stays HC Order That Altered Law Officer Exam Result Citing I.R. Coelho Verdict

The judgment in question had allowed a rival candidate’s claim for restoration of marks in a competitive examination based on an interpretation of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).

The SLP filed through AoR RHA Sikander assails the High Court’s final order dated May 29, 2025, which had allowed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Respondent No. 3, a Law Officer at Canara Bank, against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Single Judge.

The core dispute revolved around the correctness of the official answer key for Question No. 73 in a 2021 written recruitment test for the post of Law Officer. The question asked which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights.

While the official answer key identified “Ninth Schedule” (Option B) as the correct response, the respondent candidate chose “None of the above” (Option D) and later challenged the answer key on the basis of the I.R. Coelho judgment, arguing that post-Coelho, no Schedule is entirely immune from judicial review.

The Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition in 2022 with a detailed ruling, holding that mere violation of fundamental rights does not suffice to strike down laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, unless such violation also damages the Constitution’s basic structure. Upholding the validity of the original answer key, the Single Judge emphasized that not all fundamental rights are part of the basic structure.

However, in its impugned decision, the Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s ruling, finding merit in the candidate’s challenge and directing that his score be revised by restoring 1.25 marks, 1 mark for the allegedly correct answer and 0.25 marks deducted for the incorrect one. This revision opened the door for the respondent’s reconsideration for appointment.

The petitioner, who secured Rank 1 in the merit list and has been serving since April 2022 after successfully completing his probation, argues that the Division Bench has misinterpreted I.R. Coelho and ignored settled constitutional doctrine and the nuanced position taken by both the recruiting university and the Single Judge. He maintains that Article 31-B continues to grant immunity to laws in the Ninth Schedule unless such laws violate the basic structure, a threshold not triggered merely by infringement of fundamental rights.

Notably, Panjab University, the recruiting body had also defended the original answer key and pointed out that even if the contentious question were deleted or partial marks were awarded to both candidates, the final merit position of the petitioner would remain unaffected.