Supreme Court Orders Chandigarh Civic Body to Create Extra Law Officer Post Over Ambiguous Exam Question

The Supreme Court has directed the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh to accommodate two candidates for the post of law officer by creating a supernumerary post, after finding that a disputed question in the recruitment exam could reasonably have two correct answers.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that even high court judges differed on the correct answer to the question and, therefore, it would be unfair to expect law graduates appearing for the exam to arrive at only one conclusion.

“When the judges of the high court are at variance in their opinion as to the correct answer, it is least expected from mere law graduates, who are competing for a post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, to reach to a correct conclusion while answering the multiple-choice question,” the Bench said.

The dispute arose from a multiple-choice question in the recruitment test which asked: “Which of the following Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?” The options were: Seventh Schedule, Ninth Schedule, Tenth Schedule and “None of the above.”

One candidate, Charan Preet Singh, marked Option B, “Ninth Schedule”, which was treated by the recruiting body as the correct answer. Another candidate, Amit Kumar Sharma, chose Option D, “None of the above.”

Sharma challenged the result before the high court. The single judge upheld the recruitment body’s answer key and held that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule continue to enjoy immunity from judicial review on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.

However, the division bench took a different view while relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs vs. State of TN. It observed that although Article 31B grants protection to laws included in the Ninth Schedule, that protection is not absolute and such laws can still be tested on the touchstone of the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine.

The division bench therefore held that Option D, “None of the above”, was legally correct and consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It further observed that Sharma, being a law graduate, had answered the question in line with binding legal principles and that the deduction of marks had adversely affected his merit position and denied him fair consideration for appointment.

At the same time, the division bench noted that Charan Preet Singh had already joined service and his appointment could not be disturbed merely because the judicial determination came later.

While examining the issue, the Supreme Court noted that both the single judge and the division bench had relied upon several landmark constitutional judgments, including Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India and State of Bihar (1951), Sajjan Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (1964), C. Golak Nath and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (1967), His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs. State of Kerala and Another (1973) and I.R. Coelho.

The Apex Court said that from the perspective of a law graduate, both answers could be considered correct. It observed that Option B appeared more appropriate based on the wording of the question itself, but after a deeper analysis of constitutional law and previous Supreme Court rulings, Option D could also be treated as correct.

Court ultimately held that both candidates deserved to be accommodated. It directed the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh to create a supernumerary post and appoint Sharma as well.

The Bench also clarified that Charan Preet Singh, who was initially selected and has already joined service, would remain senior to Sharma.

Case Title: Charan Preet Singh Vs Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra

Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026