New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh to accommodate two candidates for the post of Law Officer by creating a supernumerary post after finding that the answers of both to a disputed constitutional law question in the recruitment examination could be considered correct.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing an appeal filed by Charan Preet Singh challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had favoured another candidate, Amit Kumar Sharma, in a dispute over the answer to a multiple-choice question in the written test.
The controversy centred on Question No.73 in the examination, which asked: “Which of the following Schedules of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?”
While the recruiting body treated “Ninth Schedule” as the correct answer, Sharma had marked “None of the above” and was penalised with negative marking, affecting his overall merit.
In its decision, the apex court observed that even judges of the P&H High Court had differed on the correct answer and observed that expecting candidates to conclusively resolve such a complex constitutional issue was unreasonable.
“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 a correct conclusion while answering the multiple-choice question,” the Justice Karol-led Bench said.
It further held that both options could be justified depending on the level of legal analysis applied.
“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… Option ‘D’ (None of the above) can also be considered to be correct,” the Supreme Court observed.
Taking a balanced view, the bench directed that both candidates be accommodated. Clarifying the service position, the top court said that the appellant, who had already been appointed and was working on the post, would retain seniority.
(IANS)
