Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a recruitment examination conducted by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh for the post of Law Officer. The appellant Charan Preet Singh and third respondent Amit Kumar Sharma were among the candidates. Question No. 73 asked which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, with options including Seventh Schedule, Ninth Schedule, Tenth Schedule, and None of the above. The recruiting body considered Ninth Schedule as the correct answer, while the third respondent answered None of the above. The third respondent lost marks due to this answer and filed a writ petition challenging the answer key. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that Ninth Schedule laws retain immunity from challenge based solely on violation of fundamental rights, relying on Article 31B and precedents including Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, Sajjan Singh, and I.R. Coelho. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, holding that Ninth Schedule immunity is not absolute and is subject to the basic structure test, making None of the above the correct answer. The Supreme Court considered the conflicting interpretations and noted that both answers could be considered correct from a law graduate's perspective. While Option B appeared more appropriate based on the question's language, Option D could also be correct per the Division Bench's analysis. To balance equities, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation to create a supernumerary post and appoint both candidates, with the appellant treated as senior. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Ninth Schedule Immunity - Constitution of India, Articles 31B, 141 - Dispute arose from recruitment exam question asking which Schedule is immune from judicial review on grounds of violation of fundamental rights - Single Judge held Ninth Schedule correct based on Article 31B and precedent cases - Division Bench held 'None of the above' correct as immunity not absolute and subject to basic structure test - Supreme Court found both answers could be considered correct from law graduate's perspective and directed equitable accommodation (Paras 4-11). B) Administrative Law - Recruitment Exams - Equitable Accommodation - Municipal Corporation Chandigarh Recruitment Rules - Appellant selected based on answer key marking Ninth Schedule as correct answer - Third respondent challenged deduction of marks for answering 'None of the above' - Both candidates were law graduates competing for Law Officer post - Supreme Court directed creation of supernumerary post to appoint both candidates, treating appellant as senior (Paras 2-3, 8, 11).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the correct answer to a multiple-choice question in a recruitment exam regarding immunity of Ninth Schedule laws from judicial review on grounds of violation of fundamental rights was Option 'B' (Ninth Schedule) or Option 'D' (None of the above)
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of; Municipal Corporation directed to create supernumerary post and appoint both appellant and third respondent, with appellant treated as senior
