The Supreme Court intervened in a 2021 recruitment exam of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation . Two candidates disputed the correct answer to a constitutional MCQ, leading the Court to create a supernumerary post so that both could be appointed. Key Developments High Court Single Judge upheld the answer key, marking Option B – Ninth Schedule as correct. Division Bench reversed this view, accepting Option D – None of the above based on the I.R. Coelho precedent. The Supreme Court observed that when judges themselves differ, it is unreasonable to expect law graduates to reach a definitive answer. Both candidates were accommodated by directing the municipal corporation to create a supernumerary post and retain the seniority of the already‑appointed officer. Important Facts Exam year: 2021; Case citation: Charan Preet Singh v. Municipal Corporation Chandigarh (2026 SC 253). Question asked: “Which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?” Options: A) Seventh Schedule, B) Ninth Schedule, C) Tenth Schedule, D) None of the above. Legal provisions involved: Article 31B and the basic structure doctrine . Judicial precedents cited: Shankari Prasad , Sajjan Singh , Golak Nath , Kesavananda Bharati , and I.R. Coelho . UPSC Relevance This case illustrates several core UPSC topics: Constitutional law: Understanding the evolving scope of the Ninth Schedule and the impact of the basic structure doctrine . Judicial hierarchy and precedent: How divergent High Court judgments can be reconciled by the Supreme Court. Public administration: Use of supernumerary posts to resolve recruitment disputes, relevant for questions on civil service appointments and administrative law. Exam‑writing insight: The decision underscores that MCQs based on nuanced jurisprudence may have more than one defensible answer, a point aspirants should consider while preparing for prelims and mains. Way Forward For aspirants, the case recommends: Master the chronology of landmark constitutional cases and their doctrinal contributions. Analyse the language of MCQs critically; identify when a question may admit multiple interpretations. Stay updated on Supreme Court pronouncements that reconcile conflicting lower‑court views, as these often shape future policy and administrative practice. In answer writing, explicitly cite relevant provisions (e.g., Article 31B ) and doctrines to demonstrate depth of understanding. Overall, the Supreme Court’s equitable solution reflects the balance between legal certainty and fairness, a principle central to India’s constitutional democracy.