The Supreme Court of India has disposed of a civil appeal involving a dispute over the “correct” answer to a constitutional law question in a recruitment examination for the post of Law Officer. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra directed the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh to accommodate both the appellant and the contesting candidate by creating a supernumerary post, noting that from a law graduate’s perspective, multiple answers could be considered correct based on varying judicial interpretations over decades.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a recruitment advertisement issued by the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh for one post of Law Officer. The selection was based on a 100-mark written test featuring multiple-choice questions. Question No. 73 of the examination asked:
“Which of the following schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights? A) Seventh Schedule B) Ninth Schedule C) Tenth Schedule D) None of the above”
The recruiting body declared Option ‘B’ (Ninth Schedule) as the correct answer. However, the third respondent, Amit Kumar Sharma, chose Option ‘D’ (None of the above). Because of this discrepancy, Sharma was awarded negative marks, leading to his non-selection. The appellant, Charan Preet Singh, was selected and joined the service.
Sharma challenged the result in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed his petition, but a Division Bench later reversed that decision, ruling that Option ‘D’ was legally correct. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Division Bench’s judgment.
Legal Analysis and Cited Precedents
The core of the dispute rested on whether the Ninth Schedule remains “immune” from judicial review.
The learned Single Judge had ruled that Article 31B, which provides immunity to laws in the Ninth Schedule, still exists. The Single Judge relied on:
- Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (1951)
- Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1964)
- I.R. Coelho vs. State of T.N. (2007)
The Single Judge reasoned that while I.R. Coelho devised an “alternate test” involving the basic structure, the reference for invalidity was not the violation of fundamental rights per se, but the effect on the basic features of the Constitution. Thus, the Single Judge held that the recruiting body was right to name Option ‘B’ as the correct answer.
Conversely, the Division Bench of the High Court held that after the judgment in I.R. Coelho, it is “incorrect to state, in categorical terms, that the Ninth Schedule is immune from judicial review merely on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.” The Bench found that Sharma’s selection of Option ‘D’ was aligned with the settled position of law under Article 141.
The Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted the difficulty of the question, observing that when High Court Judges themselves are at variance in their opinions, it is “least expected from mere law graduates… to reach to a correct conclusion… by process of interpretation of Constitutional provisions involving this Court’s judgments in several decades.”
The Court observed:
“From a law graduate’s point of view, both the answers may be correct, although Option ‘B’ (Ninth Schedule) appears to be more appropriate considering the language of the question asked. However, on a deeper analysis of this Court’s judgments mentioned above, Option ‘D’ (None of the above) can also be considered to be correct as has been held by the Division Bench.”
Final Decision
To balance the equities, the Court invoked the principle of creating a supernumerary post, as seen in Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2013).
The Court directed:
- The Municipal Corporation Chandigarh must accommodate both Charan Preet Singh (Appellant) and Amit Kumar Sharma (Third Respondent).
- A supernumerary post shall be created to appoint Sharma.
- The appellant, who was initially selected and is currently working, will be treated as senior to Sharma.
The appeal was disposed of with these directions, ensuring that neither candidate was penalized for the interpretative ambiguity of the examination question.
Case Details:
Case Title: Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 16533/2025)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Dated: March 17, 2026
