NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has stepped in to settle a dispute over a law officer recruitment exam in Chandigarh after two judges of the Punjab and Haryana high court gave differing views on the same question, according to news website LiveLaw. The case relates to a 2021 exam conducted by the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation for one post of law officer. Charan Preet Singh was selected, but his appointment was challenged by another candidate, Amit Kumar Sharma, who claimed he was wrongly given a negative mark. The dispute centred on a question: “Which of the following Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?” Options included: A) Seventh Schedule B) Ninth Schedule C) Tenth Schedule D) None of the above The recruiting authority treated option B, “Ninth Schedule”, as correct. Sharma chose option D, arguing that no Schedule enjoys complete immunity from judicial review. He was therefore given a negative mark. A single judge of the high court upheld the answer key, citing Article 31B and past rulings. However, a division bench later disagreed. Referring to I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, it said such immunity is not absolute and that laws in the Ninth Schedule can still be reviewed if they violate the Constitution’s basic structure. It held Sharma’s answer to be correct and ordered revision of his marks. The matter then reached the Supreme Court. The court noted that the issue involved complex constitutional interpretation and that both answers could not be treated as wholly incorrect. It also observed that even judges, after examining multiple constitutional rulings, had reached different conclusions. In this context, the court said it would be unreasonable to expect candidates to arrive at a single definitive answer. It ultimately held that “from a law graduate’s point of view, both the answers may be correct”, according to LiveLaw.
