Back
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Charan Preet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation Chandigarh – Respondent
The facts of the case are as follows:
The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including one post of Law Officer, with selection based solely on a written test consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions (!) .
The appellant and a third respondent applied for the post. During the examination, Question No. 73 asked: "Which of the following schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights?" with options including the Ninth Schedule and "None of the above" (!) (!) .
The third respondent answered with Option 'D' ("None of the above"), while the recruiting body maintained that Option 'B' (Ninth Schedule) was the correct answer (!) .
Consequently, the third respondent was penalized one mark for giving a wrong answer and an additional 1/4th mark for negative marking (!) . This deduction reduced his score, and upon reconsideration of his case, the appellant (who was initially selected) would secure fewer marks than the third respondent, potentially ousting the appellant from consideration (!) .
The third respondent filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of his claim, arguing that his answer was legally correct based on binding judicial precedents regarding the immunity of Constitutional Schedules from judicial review solely on grounds of fundamental rights violations (!) .
A Single Judge initially dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Ninth Schedule laws remain immune from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights, thus validating the recruiting body's stance on Option 'B' (!) (!) .
However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition, observing that no Schedule is absolutely immune from judicial review merely for infringing fundamental rights, thereby validating the third respondent's answer of Option 'D' (!) .
The present appeal challenges the Division Bench's judgment, which directed the respondents to revise the third respondent's score and reconsider his selection (!) .
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal would call in question the judgment dated 29.5.2025 rendered by the 2. 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 marks than the third respondent and, thus, could be ousted from consideration.
3. 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 on
Selection for post of Law Officer – Recruitment Examination – When Judges of High Court are at variance in their opinion as to correct answer to a question, it is least expected from mere Law Graduat....
When a recruitment examination contains a question involving complex constitutional interpretation subject to conflicting judicial views, the court may direct the creation of a supernumerary post to ....
If a reserved category candidate received more or equal marks qua UR category candidate, he will secure birth in UR category and he cannot be treated to be a reserve category candidate.
Judicial appointments under Article 233(2) necessitate clearer interpretation by a Constitution Bench, ensuring eligibility criteria for district judges adequately reflect independence and prior advo....
A candidate must meet the established criteria and cut-off marks to be considered for appointment, and vacancies cannot provide an indefeasible right to appointment when the selection process is comp....
(1) Constitutionality of Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test as a part of selection criteria for appointment to District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respecti....
The age limit of 45 years for promotion under the Chhattisgarh Service Recruitment Rules is lawful and does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(1) When Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney held that 50% is upper limit of reservation under Article 16(4), it is law which is binding under Article 141 and to be implemented. When law is laid down....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
