'HC judges differed on correct answer': Supreme Court orders appointment of two candidates to post of law officer

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh told accommodate two candidates to the post of law officer by creating a supernumerary post.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court was on Tuesday confronted with a peculiar situation where a multiple choice question in a recruitment examination to the post of law officer in a municipal body resulted in judges of the High Court differing in answers, and thus change of fortune for two competing candidates.

Holding that both the answers given by the two candidates were sustainable in law, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra directed the Municipal Corporation Chandigarh to accommodate the two candidates to the post of law officer by creating a supernumerary post.

"When the judges of the High Court are at variance in their opinion as to the correct answer, it is least expected from mere law graduates, who are competing for a post of law officer in the municipal corporation, to reach to a correct conclusion while answering the multiple-choice question by process of interpretation of constitutional provisions involving this court’s judgments in several decades," the bench said in its judgment.

The question in the examination was, '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.'

One Amit Kumar Sharma chose option D as the correct answer, while appellant Charan Preet Singh chose B. The recruitment authority also declared B as the correct answer.

Sharma challenged this before the Punjab and Haryana High Court's single judge, who held the recruiting body was right by mentioning option ‘B’ as the correct answer.

On his appeal, the division bench, however, held, while Article 31B grants certain immunities to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, these immunities are not absolute and are subject to test of basic structure. Consequently, it is incorrect to state, in categorical terms, that the Ninth Schedule is immune from judicial review merely on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, it declared.

The division bench also said, Sharma, being a law graduate, answered the question in consonance with the binding law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution and deduction of 1.25 marks in the examination materially altered his merit ranking and deprived him of fair consideration for selection.

The division bench also noted though appellant Charan Preet Singh has already joined services, the constitutional right of a deserving candidate cannot be defeated solely on account of delay in judicial determination.   

Considering the plea by Singh, who stood to lose his appointment, the top court said, "From a law graduate’s point of view, both the answers may be correct, although option ‘B’ (Ninth Schedule) appears to be more appropriate considering the language of the question asked. However, on a deeper analysis of this court’s judgments mentioned above, option ‘D’ (None of the above) can also be considered to be correct as has been held by the division bench".

The court also noted, to evaluate as to whether option ‘D’ was correct or option ‘B’, which according to the recruiting body is correct, the single judge and the division bench have considered the constitutional provisions and the decisions rendered by this court in its celebrated judgments in the matter of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India and State of Bihar (1951); Sajjan Singh and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others (1964), C Golak Nath and Others vs State of Punjab and Another (1967), His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru vs State of Kerala and Another (1973) and IR Coelho (Dead) by LRs vs State of TN (2007).

The bench declared that both the candidates deserved to be accommodated in the recruitment. It directed the municipal body to create a supernumerary post and appoint Sharma as well, while clarifying that Charan Preet Singh would be considered as senior because he has joined the post and was presently working.