New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has directed the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation to accommodate two candidates for the post of Law Officer. The Court created a supernumerary post so both candidates can be appointed without affecting the seniority of the candidate already selected.
Background of the Dispute
The issue arose from the 2021 Law Officer examination conducted by the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation for one vacancy. Charan Preet Singh was initially selected. Another candidate, Amit Kumar Sharma, challenged the appointment, claiming he received a negative mark for a constitutional law question.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court initially ruled in Sharma’s favor in 2022, prompting Singh to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Contested Exam Question
The disputed question asked:
“Which of the following Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?”
Options:
- A) Seventh Schedule
- B) Ninth Schedule
- C) Tenth Schedule
- D) None of the above
The recruiting authority treated option B (Ninth Schedule) as correct. Sharma chose option D (None of the above), arguing that no Schedule is absolutely immune from judicial review.
High Court Decisions
A Single Judge of the High Court upheld the answer key. The Judge ruled that Article 31B grants immunity to laws in the Ninth Schedule against fundamental rights challenges. He relied on precedents such as Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, and the post-Kesavananda Bharati position.
In contrast, a Division Bench referred to I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu. It held that the Ninth Schedule is not absolutely immune. Laws in the Ninth Schedule remain subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The Bench concluded that Sharma’s answer was correct and revised his marks, which displaced the initially selected candidate.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court noted the complexity of the question. It highlighted that both the recruiting authority and Sharma had reasonable arguments. The Court observed that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench analyzed decades of constitutional jurisprudence, including Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, Golak Nath, Kesavananda Bharati, and I.R. Coelho, yet reached different conclusions.
The Court emphasized that expecting law graduates to arrive at a definitive answer was unreasonable. It stated:
“From a law graduate’s point of view, both the answers may be correct.”
While option B aligns with the plain language of the question, deeper analysis shows option D also qualifies as correct.
Supreme Court’s Decision
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed:
“When the Judges of the High Court are at variance in their opinion on Question No.73, it is least expected from law graduates to reach a correct conclusion. Both candidates deserve to be accommodated. Option ‘B’ appears more appropriate based on the language, but option ‘D’ can also be considered correct on deeper analysis.”
The Court directed the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation to:
- Appoint Sharma by creating a supernumerary post
- Allow Singh to retain his seniority
Case: Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Another.
Also Read: Menstrual Leave Policy: SC Asks Centre to Conside.
