Supernumerary posts may be created to accommodate candidates where exam questions yield multiple legally plausible answers.

The Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, conducted a recruitment exam for one post of Law Officer, where selection was based solely on a written test

A dispute arose regarding Question No. 73, which asked which Constitutional Schedule is immune from judicial review on the grounds of violating fundamental rights

The recruiting body identified "Option B (Ninth Schedule)" as correct, whereas the third respondent, Amit Kumar Sharma, selected "Option D (None of the above)"

The third respondent’s score was reduced due to negative marking, leading him to challenge the results.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that Article 31B still provides immunity as upheld in Shankari Prasad and Kesavananda Bharati

However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this, ruling that per I.R. Coelho, no Schedule is absolutely immune from judicial review if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution

The appellant, who had already joined the post, appealed the Division Bench's decision

1. Whether Option ‘B’ (Ninth Schedule) or Option ‘D’ (None of the above) is the correct answer to the question regarding the judicial immunity of Constitutional Schedules

2. Whether a candidate can be expected to provide a definitive answer to a complex question of constitutional interpretation in a multiple-choice recruitment exam

3. What relief should be granted to balance the equities between the selected candidate and the high-ranking respondent

The Court considered Article 31B of the Constitution, which provides for the validation of certain Acts included in the Ninth Schedule

It referenced a line of precedents including Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which initially upheld the immunity of the Ninth Schedule

It further noted the shift in C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab and the eventual establishment of the Basic Structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Crucially, the Court relied on I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs v. State of T.N., which clarified that while Article 31B provides certain immunities, Ninth Schedule laws are subject to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights that form part of the "basic features" of the Constitution

Finally, it applied the principle from Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding the creation of supernumerary posts to balance equities

The Supreme Court observed that the "correctness" of the answer depended on the level of legal interpretation applied

From a literal reading of Article 31B, Option ‘B’ appeared appropriate; however, a deeper jurisprudential analysis based on I.R. Coelho supported Option ‘D’, as no schedule enjoys absolute immunity

The Court emphasized that when High Court judges themselves differ in their interpretation of the correct answer, it is unreasonable to expect law graduates in a competitive exam to reach a singular conclusion on such complex, decades-old constitutional jurisprudence

Consequently, the Court found merit in both positions and determined that penalizing a candidate for a nuanced interpretation of law was inequitable

The Court directed the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, to create a supernumerary post to appoint the third respondent while allowing the appellant to remain in his current post

The appellant, having joined first, is to be treated as senior to the third respondent

The appeal was disposed of with these directions to balance the constitutional rights of the deserving candidate with the job security of the already appointed officer