The Supreme Court has instructed the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh to make provisions for two candidates vying for the position of Law Officer by establishing an additional post. This decision stemmed from both candidates providing plausible answers to a contentious constitutional law query during the recruitment test. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, addressed an appeal by Charan Preet Singh against a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that favored another candidate, Amit Kumar Sharma, in a disagreement over a multiple-choice question response.
The focal point of the dispute revolved around Question No.73 in the exam, which inquired about a Constitution Schedule immune from judicial review concerning fundamental rights violation. While the examining body deemed “Ninth Schedule” as the correct choice, Sharma opted for “None of the above,” incurring negative marking that impacted his overall ranking. The apex court’s verdict highlighted the divergence among High Court judges regarding the accurate answer and deemed it unreasonable to expect mere law graduates, competing for a Law Officer role, to definitively resolve such intricate constitutional matters.
The Justice Karol-led Bench emphasized that both responses could be justified based on the depth of legal analysis applied. It acknowledged that while “Ninth Schedule” seemed more fitting considering the question’s language, “None of the above” could also be deemed correct upon closer scrutiny. In a balanced decision, the court directed the accommodation of both candidates. Additionally, it clarified that the appellant, already serving in the role, would maintain seniority status.
