The Supreme Court granted relief to two candidates involved in a dispute arising from a recruitment examination for the post of Law Officer, holding that when even judges express differing views on a legal question, it is unreasonable to expect candidates to arrive at a single correct answer in a multiple-choice format. The Court addressed the issue of ambiguity in the answer key and resolved the dispute by directing that both candidates be accommodated through the creation of a supernumerary post.
The matter originated from a recruitment examination conducted for a single post of Law Officer, where one candidate was selected while another challenged the result. The challenge was based on the contention that he had been wrongly penalized for selecting an answer that differed from the officially accepted answer in the key. The dispute centered around a constitutional law question asking which Schedule of the Constitution is immune from judicial review on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.
The options provided included the Seventh Schedule, Ninth Schedule, Tenth Schedule, and “None of the above.” The examining authority treated the Ninth Schedule as the correct answer. However, the candidate who challenged the result had chosen “None of the above,” arguing that constitutional law has evolved to establish that no Schedule is entirely immune from judicial review, particularly in light of the basic structure doctrine.
The dispute led to proceedings before the High Court, where divergent views emerged. A Single Judge upheld the answer key, reasoning that the Ninth Schedule provides protection to certain laws from challenges based on fundamental rights. However, a Division Bench later took a different view, holding that such protection is not absolute and that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule remain subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Based on this interpretation, the Division Bench concluded that the candidate’s answer could not be considered incorrect and directed that his marks be revised accordingly. This resulted in a change in the selection outcome, leading the originally selected candidate to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the issue and noted that the question involved complex aspects of constitutional law on which even judicial opinions have differed. It observed that the existence of conflicting judicial interpretations demonstrates that the issue is not straightforward and cannot be reduced to a single unequivocal answer in the context of an objective examination.
The Court emphasized that when judges themselves have taken different positions on a legal question, it is unreasonable to expect candidates appearing in a competitive examination to determine a single correct answer. It observed that from the perspective of a law graduate, both answers could be justified depending on the level of legal analysis applied.
The Court further noted that the question, as framed, did not adequately account for the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence and the nuanced interpretation of the law. While the answer indicating the Ninth Schedule might appear correct based on a basic understanding, a more advanced interpretation would support the view that no Schedule is completely immune from judicial review.
In light of this ambiguity, the Court held that neither candidate could be said to be clearly wrong. It concluded that penalizing a candidate for adopting a legally tenable interpretation would be unjust, particularly when the issue itself is subject to debate among legal experts.
To resolve the dispute in a fair manner, the Court directed the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate both candidates. It clarified that the candidate who had already been appointed would continue in his position without any disturbance to his seniority, while the other candidate would be appointed in addition to the existing post.
The judgment reflects the Court’s recognition of the inherent challenges in framing objective questions on subjects that involve interpretative and evolving legal principles. It highlights the need for fairness in evaluation, especially when questions admit of more than one reasonable answer.
By granting relief to both candidates, the Court ensured that the ambiguity in the examination process did not result in the exclusion of a deserving candidate. The decision underscores the importance of accommodating multiple valid interpretations in cases where the law is not settled in absolute terms.
The ruling also emphasizes that examination authorities must exercise care in framing questions, particularly in fields like constitutional law where legal principles are subject to interpretation and development. The Court’s approach sought to balance the competing claims of the candidates while upholding fairness and equity in the recruitment process.
Ultimately, the decision ensured that both candidates were given an opportunity consistent with their merit and that the ambiguity in the answer key did not lead to an unjust outcome.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.