When HC judges can't decide the correct answer, how can law graduates? Supreme Court on law officer exam question

The Supreme Court recently stepped in to solve a question asked in a Chandigarh law officer recruitment examination after two High Court judges chose different answers to the same ambiguous question [Charan Preet Singh vs. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors.]. .A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with a question of constitutional law:“Which of the following Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?”The options included (a) Seventh Schedule, (b) Ninth Schedule, (c) Tenth Schedule and (d) None of the above.At first, the Supreme Court noted that the issue had already divided judicial opinion at the High Court level and said such questions cannot be fairly put to candidates in a multiple-choice format.“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,” the Bench said.It then observed that both options (b) [Ninth Schedule] and (d) [None of the above] are correct. It explained that while the Ninth Schedule may appear to be the correct answer based on the wording of the question, a deeper understanding of constitutional law shows that its immunity from judicial scrutiny is not absolute.“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 Court held.In view of this, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh to accommodate two contesting candidates by creating a supernumerary post. It also clarified that the candidate who had already been appointed would retain seniority..The dispute arose from a recruitment process for a post of Law Officer in the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation which was based on a written examination consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions with negative marking.The controversy centred on a question asking which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.The recruiting authority treated the Ninth Schedule as the correct answer. However, one candidate marked 'None of the above', arguing that in light of constitutional developments and Supreme Court judgments, including the ruling in IR Coelho, no Schedule enjoys absolute immunity from judicial review.Since his answer was treated as incorrect, marks were deducted, affecting his ranking and selection.He approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court. While a single-judge of the High Court upheld the answer key, a Division Bench later held that 'None of the above' was the correct answer and directed reconsideration of his candidature. This put the selection of the originally appointed candidate at risk.The matter was then carried to the Supreme Court by the selected candidate..Taking note of the ambiguity in the question and the conflicting judicial views, the Supreme Court chose not to unsettle the selection process. Instead, it adopted an equitable solution by recognising both answers as correct and directing that both candidates be appointed..The appellant was represented by advocates RHA Sikander, Jatin Bhatt, Sanawar, Kshitij Singh, Nuzhat Naseem, Sikander Raza, Faisal Mohammed and Chirag Verma.The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda along with advocates Shubham Saigal, Siddharth Jain, Shreya Bansal, Shruti Priya Mishra, Ashish Shukla, Shubham Bhalla, Alex Noel Dass, Ragini Sharma, Neha Verma, Rohit Pandey, Aman Khatri, Yash and Amitoj Bir Singh..[Read Judgment]