CHARAN PREET SINGH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CHANDIGARH

Leave granted.

This Appeal would call in question the judgment dated 29.5.2025 rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No.286-2022 (O&M) to set aside the judgment dated 7.2.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1007 of 2022 whereby the writ petition preferred by the third respondent – Amit Kumar Sharma was dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the third respondent stands allowed and the official respondents were directed 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. As a result of such reconsideration, the present appellant, who was selected in the recruitment, would secure less Digitally signed by MINI Date: 2026.03.17 16:38:10 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

To put the facts in hand very briefly and concisely, the first respondent – Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including for one post of Law Officer. The selection for the post of Law Officer was to be made only on the basis of a written test where 100 questions of multiple-choice type carrying one mark each were to be attempted. For each wrong answer, 1/4th mark was to be deducted as negative marking. The appellant and the third respondent applied for the said post.

In the abovesaid examination, one of the questions, question no.73, was asked as under:

The dispute in the present matter relates to the correct answer to the abovesaid question. 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) is the correct answer. According to the recruiting body, the third respondent gave a wrong answer. The third respondent secured one mark less for giving a wrong answer and further 1/4th mark was deducted by way of negative marking. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the third respondent on the reasoning that Article 31B of the Constitution of

In the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench, in its judgment, which is impugned herein, has again referred to paragraph 148 of I.R. Coelho (supra) to observe that while Article 31B grants certain immunities to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, these immunities are not absolute and are subject to test of basic structure. Consequently, it is incorrect to state, in categorical terms, that the Ninth Schedule is immune from judicial review merely on the ground of violation of fundamental rights. Therefore, the

Question No.73 was included in the recruitment test for selection to the post of Law Officer in the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. To evaluate as to 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 is correct, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench as well have considered the Constitutional provisions and the decisions rendered by this Court in its celebrated judgments in the matter of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo (supra); Sajjan Singh (supra); C. Golak Nath (supra); His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru (supra); and I.R. Coelho (supra). 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. 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.

In the above view of the matter, we direct the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, to accommodate both, the appellant as well as the third

The Appeal is disposed of in the above stated terms.