Supreme Court Grants Relief to Both Candidates in Law Officer Recruitment Dispute: Ninth Schedule Immunity Question Held Ambiguous

Background and Overview

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated a significant recruitment dispute involving the selection process for the post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The matter — Charan Preet Singh Vs Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors — raised a nuanced constitutional question that ultimately divided judicial opinion at multiple levels, leading the apex court to craft a pragmatic and equitable resolution for both competing candidates.

The case serves as an important reminder of how ambiguity in constitutional interpretation can have real-world consequences for candidates appearing in competitive examinations, and how courts must balance merit, fairness, and constitutional correctness when adjudicating such disputes.

The Recruitment Process and the Disputed Question

The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh issued a public advertisement inviting applications for several posts, including one post of Law Officer. The entire selection was based exclusively on a written examination comprising 100 multiple-choice questions, each carrying one mark. Negative marking of 1/4th mark was applicable for every incorrect response.

Among the candidates who applied were Charan Preet Singh (the appellant) and Amit Kumar Sharma (the third respondent). The controversy arose specifically in relation to Question No. 73, which read as follows:

"Which of the following schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?
A) Seventh Schedule
B) Ninth Schedule
C) Tenth Schedule
D) None of the above"

The recruiting authority designated Option B (Ninth Schedule) as the correct answer. However, Amit Kumar Sharma had selected Option D (None of the above). As a consequence, not only was he denied a mark for the question, but a further deduction of 0.25 marks was applied as negative marking — resulting in a total adverse impact of 1.25 marks on his final score. This deduction proved material enough to alter his merit ranking and effectively exclude him from selection, in favour of Charan Preet Singh.

Proceedings Before the High Court

Single Judge's View

Amit Kumar Sharma challenged the answer key before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, upholding the recruiting authority's designation of Option B (Ninth Schedule) as correct.

The Single Judge's reasoning was grounded in an extensive reading of constitutional history and precedent. The court noted that Article 31B of the Constitution of India expressly confers immunity upon laws placed in the Ninth Schedule from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. This position, the Single Judge observed, had been firmly upheld across multiple landmark Supreme Court decisions:

  • Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India and State of Bihar — which originally validated Article 31B
  • Sajjan Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others — which reiterated and reinforced that position
  • C. Golak Nath and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another — which temporarily declared Article 31B invalid prospectively, though this was subsequently overruled
  • His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs. State of Kerala and Another — which overruled Golak Nath and restored the validity of Article 31B
  • I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs vs. State of T.N. — which further refined the position