Can Both Candidates Be Appointed for Law Officer Post? Supreme Court Decides

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a significant recruitment dispute involving the appointment of a Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh. The case arose from conflicting interpretations of a question in the recruitment examination, leading to a legal battle over the selection of candidates. The Court's ruling not only resolved the immediate issue but also clarified important principles regarding judicial review and the application of Article 31B of the Constitution.

Case Background

The dispute originated from an advertisement issued by the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, inviting applications for various posts, including that of a Law Officer. The selection process was based solely on a written examination consisting of multiple-choice questions. One of the questions in the exam, specifically question number 73, became the focal point of the dispute. The question asked which schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights, offering four options.

The third respondent, Amit Kumar Sharma, answered option 'D' (None of the above), while the recruiting body asserted that option 'B' (Ninth Schedule) was correct. As a result, Sharma was penalized with a mark deduction for an incorrect answer, which ultimately affected his ranking in the selection process. The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Sharma's writ petition, upholding the recruiting body's interpretation of the question.

What The Lower Authorities Held

The learned Single Judge dismissed Sharma's petition, reasoning that Article 31B, which provides immunity from judicial review for laws included in the Ninth Schedule, was valid and upheld by previous Supreme Court judgments. The Single Judge concluded that the question and answer framed by the recruiting body were consistent with the Constitution's provisions.

However, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that while Article 31B grants certain immunities, these are not absolute. The Division Bench found that Sharma's selection of option 'D' was legally correct, aligning with the settled position of law. They noted that the deduction of marks materially altered Sharma's merit ranking, depriving him of fair consideration for selection.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, recognized the complexity of the question posed in the recruitment exam. The Court noted that both candidates, Charan Preet Singh and Amit Kumar Sharma, had valid interpretations of the question based on the evolving legal landscape surrounding the Ninth Schedule and Article 31B. The Court acknowledged that the learned judges of the High Court had differing opinions on the correct answer, which made it unreasonable to expect law graduates to arrive at a definitive conclusion.

The Court emphasized that the principle of fair consideration must prevail in recruitment processes. It highlighted that the delay in judicial determination should not undermine the constitutional rights of deserving candidates. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh, which authorized the creation of a supernumerary post to balance equities in such situations.

Statutory Interpretation

The Supreme Court's ruling involved a critical interpretation of Article 31B and its implications for laws included in the Ninth Schedule. The Court reiterated that while Article 31B provides immunity from judicial review based solely on violations of fundamental rights, this immunity is not absolute. The Court underscored that judicial review remains available if the violation of fundamental rights impacts the basic structure of the Constitution.

The Court's analysis drew upon landmark judgments, including Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India and I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu, to illustrate the evolving understanding of the Ninth Schedule's immunity. The Court's reasoning reinforced the notion that the Constitution's basic features must be preserved, even in the context of laws that enjoy certain immunities.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it clarifies the boundaries of judicial review concerning laws in the Ninth Schedule, emphasizing that such laws are not immune from scrutiny if they infringe upon fundamental rights in a manner that affects the Constitution's basic structure. Secondly, the ruling underscores the importance of fair consideration in recruitment processes, ensuring that candidates are not unjustly penalized due to ambiguous questions or interpretations.

Moreover, the Court's decision to create a supernumerary post to accommodate both candidates reflects a pragmatic approach to resolving disputes in public service recruitment. This sets a precedent for future cases where multiple candidates may have valid claims to a position, promoting fairness and equity in the selection process.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh to accommodate both candidates by creating a supernumerary post. The Court ordered that upon the appointment of Sharma, Singh would be treated as senior, thereby ensuring that both candidates could serve in the Law Officer position.

Case Details

• Case Title: Charan Preet Singh vs Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors.
• Citation: 2026 INSC 248
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: SANJAY KAROL, J. & PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
• Date of Judgment: 2026-03-17