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.
Exam 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.