If High Court Judges Cannot Answer a Question, How Can Law Students Be Expected To? Says Supreme Court in Law Officer Recruitment Exam Dispute

In Charan Preet Singh v Municipal Corporation Chandigarh and another, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute arising from a Law Officer recruitment exam and granted relief to two candidates after finding ambiguity in the answer to a constitutional question.

The case concerned a 2021 recruitment exam conducted by the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation for a single Law Officer post. Charan Preet Singh was selected, but his appointment was challenged by Amit Kumar Sharma, who claimed he was wrongly penalised for his answer.

The dispute revolved around a multiple-choice question asking which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. The official answer key marked “Ninth Schedule” as correct, while Sharma chose “None of the above”.

Sharma argued that constitutional jurisprudence has evolved to clarify that no Schedule enjoys absolute immunity from judicial review. However, due to his answer, he was awarded negative marks, affecting his final result in the examination.

Initially, a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the answer key. The Court relied on precedents such as Shankari Prasad, Sajjan Singh, and later developments post-Kesavananda Bharati, observing that Article 31B provides protection to laws placed under the Ninth Schedule.

However, the Division Bench took a different approach. Referring to I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, it held that the immunity of the Ninth Schedule is not absolute and that such laws remain subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

This conflicting interpretation led to Sharma being awarded marks and displacing Singh from the selected position. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which carefully examined the constitutional position and the differing judicial opinions.

The Supreme Court observed that even experienced judges had reached divergent conclusions after analysing decades of constitutional jurisprudence. In such a situation, expecting a law graduate to arrive at a single definitive answer in an objective exam would be unreasonable.

The bench noted, “from a law graduate’s point of view, both the answers may be correct”, acknowledging the complexity of the issue. It further observed that while option B may appear correct based on the wording of the question, a deeper constitutional analysis also supports option D.

Taking an equitable approach, the Court decided not to penalise either candidate. Instead, it directed the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation to create a supernumerary post and appoint Sharma, while allowing Singh to retain his position and seniority.

This judgement highlights the Court’s sensitivity towards fairness in competitive examinations, especially when legal questions involve evolving and nuanced constitutional interpretations.