The Supreme Court of India has resolved a recruitment dispute concerning the post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, holding that two different answers to a constitutional law question could both be treated as correct.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra directed the municipal body to create a supernumerary post and appoint the competing candidate while retaining the already appointed candidate with seniority.
Background of the Case
The Municipal Corporation Chandigarh issued a recruitment notification for several posts, including one post of Law Officer, to be filled through a written examination consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions.
Read also:- MP High Court: Secondary Evidence Cannot Replace Original When It Is Available
Both Charan Preet Singh and Amit Kumar Sharma appeared for the examination.
A dispute arose regarding Question No. 73, which asked:
Which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the ground of violation of fundamental rights?
The options included:
- The Seventh Schedule
- Ninth Schedule
- Tenth Schedule
- None of the Above
The recruiting authority treated “Ninth Schedule” as the correct answer. However, Sharma selected “None of the Above”, arguing that no constitutional schedule is completely immune from judicial review.
Read also:- Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Says Minor Contradictions Can't Block Summoning of Additional Accused
Because of this answer, Sharma lost 1.25 marks due to negative marking, which affected his ranking in the selection list.
Initially, Sharma challenged the answer key before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
A Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule enjoy immunity from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights under Article 31B.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this view. It held that the immunity under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute, particularly after the Supreme Court’s ruling in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, which allowed judicial review if laws violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Employer Group Insurance Amount Cannot Be Deducted from Motor Accident Compensation
The Division Bench therefore concluded that Sharma’s answer - “None of the Above” reflected the correct legal position.
This decision affected the selection list and could have displaced Charan Preet Singh, who had already joined the post.
The Supreme Court noted that even judges of the High Court had expressed differing opinions on the correct answer.
In such circumstances, expecting candidates appearing in a multiple-choice examination to conclusively interpret complex constitutional jurisprudence was unrealistic.
The Court observed that:
When High Court judges differ on the correct answer, it cannot be expected that law graduates answering an MCQ would arrive at a definitive interpretation of constitutional law.
The Bench acknowledged that Option B (Ninth Schedule) appeared correct based on the wording of the question.
Read also:- Maternity Leave for Adoptive Mothers: Supreme Court Questions 3-Month Child Age Restriction
However, after deeper constitutional analysis, Option D (None of the Above) could also be treated as legally valid.
Balancing the equities between both candidates, the Supreme Court directed:
- Municipal Corporation Chandigarh must create a supernumerary post.
- Amit Kumar Sharma should be appointed to that post.
- Charan Preet Singh, who had already joined service earlier, will retain seniority.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Charan Preet Singh v Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3446 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16533/2025)
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Decision Date: March 17, 2026
