Least Expected From Law Graduates To Reach Correct Conclusion When HC Judges Are At Variance About Correct Answer To MCQ: Supreme Court Directs Supernumerary Law Officer Post Creation

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the official respondents to revise the third respondent’s score in the recruitment exam for one post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and, accordingly, to reconsider his case for selection to the said post. It was the appellant’s case that due to such consideration, he could be ousted from the process.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held, “When the Judges of the High Court are at variance in their opinion as to the correct answer to Question No.73, 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. Thus, we are of the considered view that both the candidates deserve to be accommodated.”

AOR R. H. A. Sikander represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first respondent – Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including one post of Law Officer. The selection for the post of Law Officer was to be made only based on a written test where 100 multiple-choice questions, carrying one mark each, were to be attempted. The appellant and the third respondent applied for the said post.

The dispute in the present matter related to the correct answer to question no.73, which was asked as follows: “73. Which of the following schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?”

The third respondent/writ petitioner answered and claimed that option ‘D’ (None of the above) is the correct answer, whereas, according to the recruiting body, option ‘B’ (Ninth Schedule) was the correct answer. The third respondent secured one mark less for giving a wrong answer, and a further 1/4th mark was deducted by way of negative marking. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the third respondent on the reasoning that the laws included in the Ninth Schedule are immune from judicial review on the ground of violation of fundamental rights even today, and the recruiting body was right in mentioning option ‘B’ as the correct answer. In the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench, in its judgment, which was impugned herein, held that the third respondent’s selection of option ‘D’ (None of the above) was legally correct.

The Division Bench, thus, found that the third respondent, being a law graduate, answered the question in consonance with the binding law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution and the deduction of 1.25 marks materially altered his merit ranking and deprived him of fair consideration for selection. As regards the appointment of the appellant, the Division Bench observed that though he had already joined the services, the Constitutional right of a deserving candidate cannot be defeated solely on account of delay in judicial determination.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that whether Option ‘D’ (None of the above) answered by the third respondent was correct or Option ‘B’ (Ninth Schedule) which according to the recruiting body was correct, the Single Judge and the Division Bench as well considered the Constitutional provisions and the decisions rendered by the Apex 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 I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs vs. State of T.N (2007).

The Bench was of the view that when the Judges of the High Court were at variance in their opinion as to the correct answer, it could be least expected from law graduates to reach a correct conclusion. “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”, it added.

The Bench thus disposed of the appeal by directing the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, to accommodate both the appellant as well as the third respondent/writ petitioner, by creating a supernumerary post and appointing the third respondent as well. “Upon appointment of the third respondent, the appellant, who was initially selected and joined and presently working on the post, will be treated as senior”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 248)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR R.H.A. Sikander, Advocates Jatin Bhatt, Sanawar, Kshitij Singh, Nuzhat Naseem, Sikander Raza, Faisal Mohammed, Chirag Verma

Respondent: Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda, AOR Shubham Saigal, Advocates Siddharth Jain, Shreya Bansal, Shruti Priya Mishra, Ashish Shukla, AOR Shubham Bhalla, Advocates Alex Noel Dass, Ragini Sharma, Neha Verma, Rohit Pandey, Aman Khatri, Yash, Amitoj Bir Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment