http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE,PUNJAB AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUCHINTAN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/04/1993

BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) BENCH: MOHAN, S. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) THOMMEN, T.K. (J)

CITATION:  1994 AIR 1761            1993 SCR  (3) 306  1993 SCC  Supl.  (3)  99 JT 1993 (3)   727  1993 SCALE  (2)632

ACT: % Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973: Section  20- Homeopathy (Diploma Course)  DHMS  Regulations, 1983-Regulations       3,8,11-Construction       of-Literary interpretation   sufficient-Eligibility  for  admission   to First, Second and Third DHMS examination-Conditions  Pattern of   DHMS  examinations-Doctrine  of  relation   back   ’not applicable. Homeopathy   (Diploma   Course)  DHMS   Regulations,   1983- Regulations 810-Whether a candidate to be permitted to  take the third year DHMS examination, if he had not completed one year  course  of study between passing  the  first  D.H.M.S. examination and appearing in the second one-Supreme  Court’s direction. Education-Diploma in Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery- Third year examination of DHMS-Whether a candidate to be permitted to  take  the  third year DHMS examination, if  he  had  not completed  one  year course of study,  between  passing  the first  DHMS  examination and appearing in  the  second  one- Supreme Court’s direction. Homeopathy,   (Diploma  Course)  DHMS   Regulations,   1983- Regulations  810-Eligibility for admission to First,  Second and   Third  DHMS  examinations-Conditions   ’Supplementary- Meaning of. Interpretation of Statutes-Homeopathy (Diploma Course)  DHMS Regulations, 1983-Regulation-8-10-Language  Plain-Harmonious interpretation does not arise- "Supplementary "-Meaning of. Words and Phrases-"Supplementary"--Meaning of. 307 C.A.No. 2107/93

HEADNOTE: The  respondents appeared in the first year D.H.MS  (Diploma in  Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery) annual examination  in june,1988.They  had  to re-appear as they did  not  get  the required  percentage of pass marks in two or more  subjects. They  were  permitted to join the second  year  class  after June,  1988.   Under the interim orders of the  High  Court, they  appeared  in  the  second  year  annual   examination.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

Simultaneously,  the respondents appeared in the first  year D.H.MS.  examination and cleared all the papers.  After  re- appearing  in  one  or  more subjects  in  the  second  year Supplementary examination in June, 1990, they were  declared passed in the 2nd year D.H.M.S. examination. The  respondents joined the third year D.H.M.S.  course  and completed the course of study.  When their examination forms were  forwarded to the appellant-Council, they  declined  to permit  the respondents to appear in the 3rd  year  D.H.M.S. annual  examination, because they did not complete one  year course   of  study  between  passing  the   first   D.H.M.S. examination and appearing in the second year course. The  respondents preferred a writ petition before  the  High Court  to direct the appellants to permit them to appear  in the third year DHMS examination, commencing from 3.9.1991. Following  the  view taken in the decision of the  Court  in C.W.P.   No  2307/  88.   Gurinder  pal   Singh   v.-Punjabi University  &  Ors.,  which was followed  in  Harinder  Kaur Chandok  (Minor)  v-  The  Punjab  School,  Education  Board through  its  Secretary, (1987) 2 PLA 638,  the  High  court allowed the writ petition of the respondents. Against  that order of the High Court, the  appeal  (C.A.No. 2107/93) was filed by special leave. The  appellants submitted that the High Court was  wrong  in its construction on regulation 11 of the Homeopathy (Diploma Course)  DHMS Regulations, 1983; that if a candidate  passed on supplementary examination, he would have to wait till the next   academic  session;  that  none   of-the   Regulations indicated  carry forward scheme of the subjects, but on  the contrary,it was a case of detention every year. The respondents urged that the interpretation placed by  the High  Courts on Regulations 8 to 10 was correct;  that  four chances afforded to the 308 candidate could be rendered nugatory, if the  interpretation as   stated  by  the  appellants  was  accepted;  that   the Regulations   did   not  say  that  after   First   D.H.M.S. examination,  a student could not study for Second  D.H.M.S. course  and  sit  for examination  provisionally;  that  the declaration  of result for the Second D.H.M.S.  course  took place  only  after  a student  cleared  the  First  D.H.M.S. examination;   that  if  the  Regulations   were   literally interpreted,  that would lead to absurdity and it would  run counter   to  the  object  of  providing   a   supplementary examination. As   the  other  appeals  (C.A.Nos.  2108-10/93)   contained identical  issue,  all the appeals were  heard  and  decided together. Allowing, the appeals, this Court, HELD:1.1.  The Regulations 8-10 of the  Homeopathy  (Diploma Course)  DHMS  Regulations, 1983 are plain  enough  and  are susceptible only to literary interpretation.               Maxwell:Interpretation   of   Statutes,   12th               Edition, Page 29, referred to.               1.2.For   admission  to  the  First   D.H.M.S.               examination:               i)a  student must have regularly attended  the               courses   of  instruction,   theoretical   and               practical;               ii)   for a period of not less than 12 months;               iii)  to  the satisfaction of the head of  the               College. (317-B) 1.3. Eligibility   for   admission   to   Second    D.H.M.S. examination is based on two conditions: i)   A student has passed his First D.H.M.S. examination  at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

the  end of one year previously.  This means one  year  must elapse between the passing of the First year examination and taking of Second Year Examination. ii)  Subsequent to the passing the First year- 309 a)   he  must  have  regularly  attended  the  courses  both theoretical and practical; b)   for a period of at least one year; c)   to the satisfaction of the head of the College. (317-F- G) Thus, unless and until, these two conditions are  satisfied, a student is ineligible for admission to the Second D.H.M.S. examination. (317-H, 318-A) 1.4  The  conditions for eligibility for admission to  Third D.H.M.S examination are: i)   After passing the Second D.H.M.S examination, one and a half  years  must  have  elapsed  before  taking  the  Third D.H.M.S. examination. ii)  Subsequent  to  the  passing  of  the  Second  D.H.M.S. examination: a)   he  must  have  regularly  attended  the  courses  both theoretical an practical; b)   for a period of 11/2 years; c)   to the satisfaction of the college. (318-F-G) 1.5. Mandatory requirements of Regulation 9 are; i)   The  lapse  of one year period between the  passing  of First  D.H.M.S. examination and taking the  Second  D.H.M.S. examination. ii)  Subsequent  to  the  passing  of  the  First   D.H.M.S. examination to undergo the course of study for  one  year. (321-G) 1.6. Therefore,  if a candidate passes in the  supplementary examination, the requirement of one year cannot be enforced. Worse  still is a case of a student who passes only  at  the next  annual examination.  Could he he allowed to  take  the Second  D.H.M.S.  examination without  even  completing  the First?  Should he by chance pass the Second D.H.M.S. and not complete  the First, since he has still one more  chance  to take this examination, what is to happen? 310 The situation is absurd.  The same principle should apply to Regulation 10 where the lapse is one and half years. (321-H, 322-A) 1.7.The  pattern of the examination is: 12 months for  First D.H.M.S.   examination,  12  months  for   Second   D.H.M.S. examination  and  18 months for Third  D.H.M.S  examination. These put together with six months of compulsory internship, make  up  the  four  years  prescribed  for  the   Course-in Regulation 3. (318-G) 1.8.When  a  candidate completes the subjects  only  in  the supplementary   examination,  then  alone,  he  passes   the examination.   It  is that pass which is declared.   If  the "doctrine  of relation back" is applied, it would  have  the effect of deeming to have passed in the annual  examination, held  at the end of 12 months, which on the face of  it,  is untrue. (321 -A) 1.9.Whatever  it  is, a candidate has to  complete  all  the subjects  within four chances.  Should he fail to do so,  he will have to undergo the course in all subjects for one year unless of course, he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to  Clause (vii).  In Regulation 11 there is no  ’system  of carry  forward’.   On the contrary, it  is  detention  every year.    Harmonious  construction  violates  the   mandatory requirements of Regulation 9. (321-E-F) 1.10.If a student were to sit idle at home after passing the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

supplementary examination that is his own making.  To  avoid such a situation, the Regulation cannot be construed causing violence to the language. (323-H, 324-A) 1.11.The candidates who, as on the day of Judgment of  these appeals,  have attended all the courses and have passed  all the examinations might make an appropriate representation to the   Council  of  Homeopathic  System  of  Medicines   (The appellant)  to  consider their  cases.   The  representation shall  be filed within a period of four weeks.  The  Council of Homiopathic System of Medicines (the appellant) will take appropriate decision. (327-C) 2.   The  adjective ’supplementary’ means an examination  to make  up the deficiencies.  Thus, it stands to  reason  only when  deficiencies are made up, the whole becomes  complete. (322-D) Oxford Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1072, referred  to. (322-B) 311

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2107-1 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1992 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13587, 13588, 13926 of 1991 and L.P.A. No. II 8 of 1992. Dipankar  Prasad Gupta, Solicitor General, N.N. Goswami  and H.K. Puri for the Appellants. Ranjit  Kumar,  Deepak  Sibal,  Ms.  Binu  Tamta  and  Tarun Aggarwal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. Leave granted. All  these  appeals  raise the identical  issue  as  to  the interpretation  of  the Regulations relating to  Diploma  in Homeopathic  Course.  Hence, they are dealt with  under  one and the same judgment. We will refer to the facts of C.W.P. No. 13587/91 which will be enough for appreciating the issues involved. The  respondents  joints the  Homeopathic  Medical  College, Chandigarh  in  the  year  1987  to  secure  a  diploma   in Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter referred to as ’DHMS’).   The said course is of a duration of  four  years. It  is  divided into 3 1/2 years of academic study  and  six months  of internship.  The course of study, their  duration and   the  scheme  of  examination  are  regulated  by   the Homeopathy   (Diploma   Course)   DHMS   Regulations,   1983 (hereinafter  called the ’Regulations’).  These  Regulations have been framed by the Central Council of Homeopathy  under Section  20  of the Homeopathy Central  Council  Act,  1973. Part   VI  of  the  Regulations  deals   with   examination. Regulations  8 to 10 occurring in part VI are  relevant  for our  purpose.,  Regulation 8 talks of first  First  D.H.M.S. examination.  That examination has to be held at the end  of 12  months  of the Course.  Regulation 9 deals  with  second D.H.M.S.  examination to be held at the end of second  year. Regulation  10deals with 3rd D.H.M.S examination,  11/2years subsequent   to   the  passing  of   the   second   D.H.M.S. examination. The  respondents appeared in the first year D.H.M.S.  annual examination in 312 June, 1988.  Since, they did not get required percentage  of pass  marks  two or more subjects, they  had  to  re-appear. They  were permitted to join the 2nd year class after  June, 1988.   Under the interim orders of the High Court  made  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

C.W.P.No 437510/1990, they appeared in the examination.  The respondents  simultaneously took their third chance for  the first year D.H.M.S. examination and finally,cleared all  the papers.   They also got re-appeared in one or more  subjects in  the 2nd year D.H.M.S. examination and accordingly,  took supplementary examination in June, 1990.  They were declared ’pass’ in that examination. The  respondents joined the third year D.H.M.S.  examination and  completed  the course of study.  In view of  that,  the Principal  of  the college in August, 1991  recommended  and forwarded  their  examination  forms  for  the  third   year Examination   to  the  appellant  namely,  the  Council   of Homeopathic  System  of Medicines,  Punjab.   The  appellant declined  to permit the respondents to take the  examination since  they  had  not completed one  year  course  of  study between passing the first D.H.M.S. examination and appearing in  the second one; hence, they were not eligible to  appear in  the  third  year  examination.   In  other  words,   the examination  has  not  been passed in  accordance  with  the scheme  prescribed  under Regulations 8 & 9.  It  was  under these circumstances, the writ petitions came to be preferred before  the  High Court of Punjab & Haryana  in  C.W.P.  No. 13587/91  praying  for a direction to permit  them  to  take third year D.H.M.S. examination commencing from 3.9. 1991. The  writ  petition  came up before a  Division  Bench.   By judgment  dated 9.3.1992 allowing that writ petition on  the reasoning that if the minimum course of study as provided by Regulations  9  and  10  if held to  be  mandatory,  such  a provision  would be liable to be struck down in view of  the decision  of the Court in C.W.P. No. 2307/88,  Gurinder  Pal Singh  v.  Punjabi  University & Ors.   Which  in  turn  has followed  Single  Judge decision reported in  Harinder  Kaur Chandok (Minor) v. The Punjab School Education Board through its  Secretory (1987) 2 PLA 638.  It is the  correctness  of this  judgment,  which  has been  questioned  in  all  these appeals. The learned Solicitor General took us through Regulations at length.   Part II deals with course of study.  Regulation  3 states  that a Diploma Course in Homeopathy shall be  spread over  a period of four years.  Those four years include  six months compulsory internship after the passing of the  final year diploma examination. When  we look at Regulations 8 to 10, three concepts  emerge from them: 313 i) Subjects; ii) Time; ii) Marks. The  duration of the examination is, first year: 12  months, Second   Year:  12  months;  and  third  year:  18   months. Regulation 8 states that a candidate may be admitted to  the first  D.H.M.S. examination.  Similarly, Regulation  9  also states  that  a candidate shall be admitted  to  the  second D.H.M.S.  examination.   Identical language  is  used  under Regulation   10   for  Third  D.H.M.S.   examination.    The submission of the learned Solicitor General is, admission to these examinations is entirely different from ’admission  to a  course’.   With  reference to admission to  each  of  the examination,  First, Second and Third year,  the  respective Regulations 8,9 & 10 prescribe the eligibility.  Unless  and until,  that  eligibility  is  possessed,  admission  to  an examination is impossible. The  High Court has taken a view that since the duration  of the  Course  is  four  years, this  Regulation  must  be  so construed  as  to fit in within those four years.   This  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

wrong. Regulation 11 talks of re-admission to an examination.  That Regulation has nothing to do with the eligibility prescribed under  Regulation  8 to 10.  In other words,  Regulation  11 cannot control the operation of these Regulations.   Regula- tion  11 (iv) talks of supplementary examination.   In  that supplementary examination, it is open to a candidate to pass in a subject or subjects in which he has failed.  When he so passes,  Clause (v) of that Regulation states that he  shall be  declared to have passed at the examination as  a  whole. Even  thereafter, if he fails in the subject or subjects  at the  supplementary examination and he has to appear  in  the examination  in the failed subject or subjects at  the  next annual examination, Clause (vi) prescribes: i)   Production of a certification; ii)  In  addition, if he had put a necessary  attendance,  a further course of study in the subject or subjects in  which he  had  failed, the minimum number of chances as  per  this clause are only four. If  he  fails  to complete the subjects  within  these  four chances, he will have to prosecute a further course of study in  all  the subjects of all parts for one  year,  in  other words,  he  has to start the course afresh  and  appear  for examination in all the 314 subjects.  Thus, it will be clear that all these Regulations talk  of re-admission to an examination in Order  to  enable the failed Candidate to undergo supplementary-and subsequent examinations.  On completion of subject in any one of  those examinations within the four chances, he is declared to have passed  the  whole  examination.   On  this  count,  it   is incorrect   to  hold  that  passing  in  the   supplementary examination  relates  back to the original  examination.   A careful reading of Regulation 9 requires the satisfaction of the  following conditions for appearing in the  Second  Year D.H.M.S. examination:               i)    The  candidate  had  passed  the   First               D.H.M.S.  examination at the end of  one  year               previously.   This means, there must be a  gap               of one year between the passing of First  year               examination  and appearing in the Second  year               examination;               ii)   Subsequent   to  the  passing   of   the               examination, must have attended the courses of               instruction for a period of at least one year.               Therefore, a candidate who fails in the  first               year examination in a subject or subjects,  if               he passes any supplementary examination cannot               take  the Second year examination at the  next               academic  year.   This is  because,  one  year               duration  had not elapsed between the  passing               of First year examination in the supplementary               examination   and  taking  the   Second   year               examination.    Worse  is  a  case   where   a               candidate passes the First Year examination at               the  third or fourth attempt.  The High  Court               has   gone  wrong  in  its   construction   on               Regulation  11  that if a candidate  passes  a               supplementary  examination, the insistence  of               one  year would require the candidate to  wait               for  one  more  year.   Therefore,  he   would               inevitably  have  to study for the  next  year               course  from  the next academic  session.   No               doubt,   the   candidate   who   passes    the               supplementary  examination  will have  to  sit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

             idle till the next academic session.  That  is               his own making.  On that score, the  attempted               harmonious  construction  by  the  High  Court               cannot be supported. The  learned Solicitor General finally submits that none  of the  Regulations indicate ’a carry. forward scheme’  of  the subjects.  On the contrary, it is a case of detention  every year.   Accordingly,  he  submits  that  the  Civil  Appeals deserve to be allowed. Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar, learned counsel in opposition  to  this, would urge that the interpretation placed by the High  court on  Regulations  8 to 10 is collect.  Otherwise,  no  useful purpose  would  be  served  by  conducting  a  supplementary examination.    Equally,  four  chances  afforded   to   the candidate  could be rendered nugatory if the  interpretation as stated by the learned solicitor General is accepted. 315 Regulation 11 has to be read along with Regulations 8 to 10. It  is not correct to argue that Regulation 11  has  nothing to  do  with admission to an examination.  As  a  matter  of fact, declaration of result of supplementary examination  of First D.H.M.S. examination was made on 31.10.1989. The  next annual  examination was held in January, 1990 within  2  1/2 months.   The  respondents passed the course  of  First  and Second  D.H.M.S.  examinations.  The result of  Second  Year D.H.M.S. supplementary examination was declared in  January, 1991.  In view of such an inordinate delay in the conduct of examinations,  the  appellant cannot contend that  one  year period  must  elapse  between  First  and  Second   D.H.M.S. examinations  and  that  the Regulations  should  have  been strictly  obeyed.   The Regulations do not  say  that  after First  D.H.M.S.  examination,  a student  cannot  study  for Second    D.H.M.S.   course   and   sit   for    examination provisionally.   The  declaration of result for  the  Second D.H.M.S.  course takes place only after he had  cleared  the First D.H.M.S examination. As rightly held by the High Court, the word ’supplementary’. denotes  supplementing to or in continuation of  the  annual examination.   Where-, therefore, provisional  admission  is given  for the Second Year D.H.M.S, course, the  failure  to complete  he  First D.H.M.S. examination should not  be  put against  the  respondent-.;.  If  the  Regulations  are   so literally interpreted, that will lead to absurdity.  It will run  counter  to  the object of  providing  a  supplementary examination.   This interpretion is holding the field for  a long  time.  This was the reason why in Jaininder Mohan  and Others  v.  The council of Homeopathic System  of  Medicine. Punjab  (1992)  1 I.L.R. Punjab 159, the court took  a  view that  passing in the supplementary examination  will  relate back  to  the  date of annual  examination.   Otherwise,  as rightly  pointed  out by the High Court,  anamolous  results would follow. In so far as the respondents have completed the examination, equities  must  weigh in their favour as laid down  by  this Court  in A. Sudha v. University, of Mysore and another  AIR 1987  SC 2305, Chandigarh Administration & Ors.  v  Manpreet Singh & Ors. [1992] 1 SCC 380, Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State  of Maharashtra [1993] 1 SCC 211. The learned  counsel also  relies on Orissa Homeopathic Regulations and  contends that  carry  forward  is permitted  in  similar  Homeopathic Regulations. In  order to appreciate the respective contentions, we  have to analyse the relevant Regulations relating to the  Diploma Course  in  Homeopathy  as  contained  Homeopathy   (Diploma course)  DHMS  Regulations,  1983.   These  Regulations  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

statutory  in  character in so far as they have come  to  be framed  in exercise of powers conferred under Clauses (i)  , (j) & (k) of Section 33 and sub-section (1) of Section 316 20 of Homeopathy Central Council Act.  Under Section 20, the Central  Council  may  prescribe the  minimum  standards  of education  in  Homeopathy required for  granting  recognised medical  qualifications by Universities, Boards and  Medical Institutions in India.  Section 33 speaks of powers to  make Regulations.  The relevant clauses are (i), (j) & (k).  They are to the following effect.               "(i)  The  courses  and  period  of  study  of               practical  training  to  be  undertaken,   the               subjects  of examination and the standards  of               proficiency  therein  to be obtained,  in  any               University,  Board or Medical institution  for               grant of recognised medical qualification;               (j)the   standards   of   staff,    equipment,               accommodation,  training and other  facilities               for education in Homeopathy;               (k)The  conduct of professional  examinations,               qualifications of examiners and the conditions               of admissions to such examinations;" Therefore,  the Central council constituted under Section  3 of  the Act has power to make Regulations under  Section  33 (k)   regarding   the  conditions  of   admission   to   the examination.   The very object of this Act is  to  prescribe minimum  standards  for  admission, duration  of  course  of training,  details of curriculum and syllabus of  study  and the title of degree or diploma.  Since they very from  State to State and even from Institute to Institute within a  same State,  it  had  become necessary to  constitute  a  Central Council. The  Advisory Committee prescribed a course of  four  years. Accordingly,  in  Regulation  3(i), it is  provided  that  a Diploma  Course  in Homeopathy shall comprise  a  course  of study,  spread over a period of four years.   This  includes the  compulsory  internship  of six  months  duration  after passing  the  final  Diploma  examination  The   Regulations contain  eligibility  to  admission,  the  curriculum,   the syllabus etc. in the various parts. Part VI deals with examination.  Regulation 8 talks of First D.H.M.S. examination.  It is stated in clause (i) : "A   candidate  may  be  admitted  to  the  First   D.H.M.S. examination  provided  that he has  regularly  attended  the following  course of instruction, theoretical and  practical for  a  period of not less than 12 months  at  a  Homeopathy College to the satisfaction of the head of the college". 317 From  the  above, it is clear for admission  to  the  First. D.H.M.S. examination: i)a  student  must have regularly attended  the  courses  of instruction, theoretical and practical; ii)  for a period of not less than 12 months; iii) to the satisfaction of the head of the College. As  regards  the Second D.H.M.S. examination,  Regulation  9 takes care.  That states in Clause (i) : "No  candidate  shall  be admitted  to  the  Second  D.H.M.S examination unless: a)   he has passed First D.H.M.S. examination at the end  of one year previously, and b)   he  has  regularly attended the  following  courses  of instruction  both theoretical and practical in the  subjects of examination for a period of at least one year  subsequent to his passing First D.H.M.S. examination from a  recognised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

Homeopathic  College to the satisfaction of the head of  the college." Here  again,  eligibility for admission to  Second  D.H.M.S. examination is based on two conditions: i)   A student has passed his First D.H.M.S. examination  at the  end of one year previously-.  This means one year  must elapse between the passing of the First year examination and taking of Second Year Examination. ii)  Subsequent to the passing the First year a)   he  must  have  regularly  attended  the  courses  both theoretical and practical; (b)  for a period of at least one year; (c)  to  the satisfaction of the head of the College.  Thus, unless  and  until, these two conditions  are  satisfied,  a student is 318 ineligible for admission to the Second D.H.M.S. examination. Clause  (iii)  states that the Second  D.H.M.S.  examination shall be held at the end of two years of D.H.M.S. course. The  Third D.H.M.S. course is provided for under  Regulation 10.  That reads as follows: "No  candidate  shall  be admitted  to  the  Third  D.H.M.S. examination unless:- (a)  he  has passed the second D.H.M.S. examination  at  the end of 1 1/2 years previously, and (b)  has   regularly  attended  the  following  courses   of instructions  both theoretical and practical in subjects  of examination  for a period of at least 11/2 years  subsequent to   his  passing  the  Second  D.H.M.S  examination  in   a recognised  Homeopathic College to the satisfaction  of  the head of the College." Here again, the conditions for eligibility for admission  to Third D.H.m.s examination are: i)   After passing the Second D.H.M.S. examination,one and a half years must have elapsed before taking the Third D.H.M.S examination. ii)  Subsequent  to  the  passing  of  the  Second  D.H.M.S. examination: a)   he  must  have  regularly  attended  the  courses  both theoretical and practical" b)   for a period of 11/2 years; c)   to the satisfaction of the college. Thus,  it will be clear that the pattern of the  examination is  as rightly urged by the learned Solicitor General  :  12 months for First D.H.M.S. examination, 12 months for  Second D.H.M.S.  examination  and  18  months  for  Third   D.H.M.S examination.    These  put  together  with  six  months   of compulsory internship, make up the four years prescribed for the Course in Regulation 3. One thing that carefully requires to be noticed is that  all the three Regulations 319 8 to 10 speak of admission to an examination, First,  Second and  Third  year respectively.  This is  entirely  different from  admission  to  a course we find great  force  in  this submission of the learned Solicitor General.  The course  of study may consist of four years, but that has nothing to  do with the scheme of examination.  Now, we come to  Regulation 11. That requires to be reproduced in full: "(i)  Every candidate for admission to an examination  shall send  to  the  authority concerned his  application  in  the prescribed  form with the examination fee at least  21  days before   the  date  fixed  for  the  commencement   of   the examination. (ii)As soon as possible after the examination the  examining

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

body shall publish a list of successful candidates  arranged in the following manner:- (a)the names and roll numbers of the first ten candidates in order of merit, and (b)  the roll number of others arranged serially. (iii)Every  candidate  shall  on  passing  the   examination receive  a  certificate  in  the  form  prescribed  by   the examining body concerned. (iv) A candidate who appears at the examination but fails to pass   in  a  subject  or  subjects  may  be   admitted   to supplementary examination in the subject or subjects of that part  of the examination in which he has failed to  be  held ordinarily after six weeks from the publication of result of the first examination on payment of the prescribed fee along with an application in the prescribed form. (v)  If  a  candidate obtains pass marks in the  subject  or subjects at the supplementary examination or the  subsequent examination,  he.  shall be declared to have passed  at  the examination as a whole, (vi) If  such  a candidate fails to pass in the  subject  or subjects at the supplementary examination in the subject  or subjects  concerned,  he  may  appear  in  that  subject  or subjects  at the next annual examination on production of  a certification in addition to the certificate required  under the  regulations, to the effect that he had attended to  the satisfaction of the Principle,a further course of study  for a period 320 of next academic year in the subject or subjects in which he had  failed, provided that all the parts of the  examination shall  be  completed  within  four  chances  including   the supplementary  one,  to be counted from the  date  when  the complete examination becomes due for the first time. (vii)If a candidate fails to pass in all the subjects within the  prescribed  four  chances,  he  shall  be  required  to prosecute  a further course of study in all the subjects  of all  parts for one year to the satisfaction of the  head  of the college and appear for examination in all the subjects. Provided that if a student appearing for the Third  D.H.M.S. Hom. examination has only one subject to pass at the end  or prescribed  chances,  he shall be allowed to appear  at  the next  examination  in  that  particular  subject  and  shall complete the examination with this special chance. (viii)All examinations shall be held on such dates, time and places as the examining body may determine. (ix) The examining body may under exceptional  circumstances partially  or wholly cancel any examination conducted by  it under  intimation to the Central Council of  Homeopathy  and arrange  for  conducting  reexamination  in  those  subjects within  a  period  of  thirty days from  the  date  of  such cancellation." This  Regulation  deals with results and readmission  to  an examination.   A close reading of the above brings  out  the following: In  clause  (iv) as to what is to happen in the event  of  a candidate failing to pass in a subject or subjects is spoken to.   He may be admitted to the  supplementary  examination. Such a supplementary examination is to ordinarily take place after  six  weeks from the publication of  result  of  First Examination. Supposing  he  passes in that subject or  ’subjects  in  the supplementary  examination he is declared to have passed  at the  examination as a whole.  This should obviously  be  so; because  once  he  completes all the  subjects,  he  has  to necessarily  be  declared to have passed.   Merely  on  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

language,  "declared to have passed at the examination as  a whole", we are unable to understand as to how the 321 "doctrine  of  relation back" could ever  be  invoked.   The invocation  of  such a doctrine leads  to  strange  results. When  a  candidate  completes  the  subjects  only  in   the supplementary   examination,  then  alone,  he  passes   the examination.   It  is that pass which is declared.   If  the "doctrine  of relation back" is applied, it would  have  the effect of deeming to have passed in the annual  examination, held  at  the end of 12 months, which on the face of  it  is untrue. With  this, we pass on to clause (vi) which deals  with  the stage  where  the candidate had failed in the  First  Annual Examination  in a subject or subjects and he had not  passed in that subject or subjects in the supplementary examination also.  The next annual examination arrives.  The  appearance in  that examination is conditioned upon production  of  two certificates: i)A certificate required under the Regulations to the effect that he had attended to the satisfaction of the Principle; ii)A  certificate  to  the effect that he  had  undergone  a further  course of study for a period of next academic  year in subject of subjects in which he had failed. Whatever it is, a candidate has to complete all the subjects within four chances.  Should he fail to do so, he will  have to undergo the course in all subjects for one yea, unless of course, he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to Clause (vii).   Nowhere  do, we find in Regulation  11   system  of carry  forward’.   On the contrary, it  is  detention  every year.   The  High  Court was moved by the  fact  that  if  a candidate  were to pass in supplementary  examination  after passing the examination, he will have to remain at home till the next annual examination.  So, he is allowed to undergo a course  for next academic year provisionally.  On this  line of reasoning, clause (iv) & (vi) of Regulation II are sought to  be  "harmoniously construed’.  We are unable  to  accept this   line  of  reasoning  or  the  so  called   harmonious construction because it does violence to the language of the Regulation.  It clearly violates the mandatory  requirements of Regulation 9. It has already been noted as to what  those requirements are.  To repeat: i)   The  lapse  of one year period between the  passing  of First D.H.M.S. examination and taking the Second  D.H.M.S. examination. ii)  Subsequent  to  the  passing  of  the  First   D.H.M.S. examination  to  undergo the course of study for  one  year. Therefore,  if  a  candidate  passes  in  the  supplementary examination, the requirement of one year cannot be enforced. Worse still is 322 a  case  of  a student who passes only at  the  next  annual examination.   Could  he  be  allowed  to  take  the  Second D.H.M.S.  examination  without even  completing  the  First? Should  he  by  chance  pass the  Second  D.H.M.S.  and  not complete  the  First, since he is still one more  chance  to take this examination, what is to happen?  The situation  is absurd.   The same principle should apply to  Regulation  10 where the lapse is one and half years. The  word  ’supplement’  is defined  in  Oxford  Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 1072: "think added to remedy deficiencies; part added to book etc, with further information, or to periodical for treatment  of particular matter(s) of an angle,(Math.)its deficiency  from               180(of.COMPLEMENT); hence Al, ARY, (mem) adjs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

             (supplementay    benefit).    [ME,f.L.     sup               (plementum f -plere fill; see-ment]" Therefore,the    adjective   ’supplementary’    means    and examination to makeup the deficiencies.  Thus. it stands  to reason only when deficiencies are made up, the whole becomes complete. On  this  score  to  say  that  passing  the   supplementary examination would relate back to the annual examination will be totally incorrect.  What counts is when the whole is made up.   From that time of making up one year or one  and  half years must elapse for second or Third D.H.M.S.  examinations as the case Amy be.  The stand of the appellants counsel  as seen from letter dated 12.12.1989 is as follows: "From:               Dr. P.L. Verma, Secretary,               Central  Council of Homeopathy, 10,  Community               Centre,               Basant Lok,               Vasant Vihar,               New Delhi - 110037. TO                The Chairman,               The Council, Homoeopathic Systems of               Medicine,               3027-28, Sector 22-D,                Chandigarh. 323 Sub:Enforcement of D.H.M.S (Diploma Course) Regulation  1983 w.e.f.  1983-84 Academic Sessions students demand for  grant of  provisional  promotion  with reappearance  in  only  one subject  to the next higher class even beyond  supplementary examination  even  prior  to his  passing  the  lower  class examination as a whole. With  reference  to your letter No.  CHSM-PV-  134  /89/1253 dated  29/ 30 November, 1989 on the subject noted above.   I am  to  say  that  the  question  of  permitting  to  appear simultaneously  for  two examinations  i.e.  lower  reappear subjects and complete subjects of the next higher class does not  arise as no candidate has to be admitted to the  Second D.H.M.S. examination unless he had passed the first D.H.M.S. examination  at  the  end  of one year  previously  and  has               regularly,  attended the course for one  year.               Similarly,  no candidate shall be admitted  to               the Third D.H.M. S. examination unless he  has               passed  the second D.H.M.S. examination 1  1/2               years  previously  and has also  attended  the               course   for  a  period  of  1  -  1/2   years               subsequent  to  his  passing  of  the   Second               D.H.M.S. Examination. COUNCIL  OF HOMOEOPATHIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE 3027-28,  Sector 22-D CHANDIGARH (UT)         No. CHCH-PV 9134/89/AT-198-200 Dated 5.2.90 Copy forwarded to the Principal, Lord Mahaveera  Homeopathic Medical College, Ludhiana/Abohar/Chandigarh for  information and  necessary  action.   This may please  be  notified  for information  of  all the students under  intimation  to  the undersigned.  The above guidelines/directions of the Central Council  may  please be strictly followed  and  observed  in respect of matters indicated therein.                                                     sd/-                                              (R.K. Sharma)                                                Registrar, No.CHMS/PV/134/89/AI-201-210               Dated 5.2.90." This stand in our opinion is correct.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

If  a  student were to sit idle at home  after  passing  the supplementary 324 examination  that  is  his  own making.   To  avoid  such  a situation,  the  Regulation  cannot  be  construed   causing violence to the language. These Regulations are plain enough and are susceptible  only to   literary   interpretation.    In   ’Maxwell   on    the Interpretation  of Statutes’ 12th Edition, it is  stated  at page 29 as under: "Where the language is plain and admits of but one  meaning,               the task of interpretation can hardly be  said               to  arise.  "The decision in this case,"  said               Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in a revenue case,               "calls  for  a full and  fair  application  of               particular  statutory language  to  particular               facts  as  found.   The  desirability  or  the               undesirability  of one conclusion as  compared               with   another  cannot  furnish  a  guide   in               reaching   a   decision."  (Shop   and   Store               Developments  Ltd.  v. I.R.C.  (1967)  1  A.C.               472).    Where,  by  the  use  of  clear   and               unequivocal  language  capable  of  only   one               meaning,   anything   is   enacted   by    the               legislature, it must be enforced however harsh               or  absurd  or contrary to  common  sense  the               result  may  be. (Cartledge v.  E.  Jopling  &               Sons, Ltd. [1963] A.C. 758) The interpretation               of  a statue is not to be collected  from  any               notions which may be entertained by the  court               as    to  what is just and expedient:  (Gwynne               v. Burnell [1840] 7 Cl. & F.   572).     Words               are  not  to be construed, contrary  to  their               meaning, as     embracing  or excluding  cases               merely because no good reason appears why they               should not be embraced or excluded. (Whitehead               v.  James Stott Ltd. [1949] 1 K.B. 358).   The               duty of the court is to expound the law as  it               stands,  and to "leave the remedy (if  one  be               resolved upon) to others." (Sutters v.  Briggs               [1922] 1 A.C. 1). We   construe   the  Regulations  as  they   stand   without introducing any element of ambiguity or absurdity. The  manner  in  which  the  respondents  have  passed   the examination is set out in the following tabulated statement: "C.W.P.  No. 13926 of 1991 Miss Kamaljit & eight  others  of L.M. Homoeopathic Medical College, Ludhiana. -----------------------------------------------------------                   1st prof.                   Annual/88  Supp/88    Annual/89 ----------------------------------------------------------- Respondent No.    Re-appear  Re-appear  Pass 325 1, Miss Kamaljit  in 3       in 2                  Contd. d/o Sawam         subjects   subjects Singh (Admitted in 1987) Resp.2,           Re-appear  pass Sh. Narinder      in 2                              Contd Kumar s/o         subjects Satya Pal Goyal (Admitted in 1987) Resp. No. 3 Shri  Re-appear   pass                  Contd. Mohd Ramzan       in 3 Thind s/o SH.     subjects

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

Moh. Yousaf (Admitted in 1987) Resp No.4 Shri    Re appears    Re-appears  pass      " Naresh Kumar      in 3 subjects in 2 subjects Resp. No.5 Shri   Re-appear    Re-appear pass         " Jaininder Mohan   in 2         in 1 s/o Shri Sham Lal subjects     subject (Admitted in 1987) Resp. No. 6 Shri  Re-appear   Re-appear  pass         " Kulbir Singh s/o  in 3        in 2 Sh. Tattan Singh  subjects    subjects (Admitted in 1987) Res. No. 7        Re-appear   pass         -          " Narinder Singh    in1 s/o Sh. Sant      subject Singh (Admitted in  1987) Res. No. 8 Inderjit Mehta d/o Anant Ram Mehta (Admitted in 1987) Resp. No. 9       Fail        Re-appear   pass        " Tejvinder Singh,              in1 s/o Jaswant Singh (Admitted in 1987) 326                        Continued Part -------------------------------------------------------- IInd Prof.     (CWP No. 481of 1991)   3rd Prof. (CWP No:                                       13926/91) Suppl./89      Annual/90   Suppl/91 -------------------------------------------------------- Re-appear      Re-appear   Re-appear  Allowed to appear in 3           in 3        in1        as per court subjects       subjects    subject    order dt.6.9.91 by                                       the Principal                                       of L. Homoeopathic                                       Medical College, Re-appear      Re-appear   pass       As per court in 3           in1                    order dt. 6.9.91 subjects       subject (without court order) Re-appear      Re-appear   pass        Not appeared in 4           in 1 subjects       subject Re-appear      Re-appear   pass        As per court in 3           in1                     orderdt 6.9.91 Fail           Re-appear   pass        As per court                in 2                    order                subjects                dt. 6.9.91 Re-appear      Re-appear   pass        As per court in 1           pass                    Order subject                                dt. 6.9.91 Re-appear      Re-appear   pass        Allowed to in 2           in 2                    appear as subjects       subjects                per Court                                        order dt.6.9.91" --------------------------------------------------------- Mr.  Ranjit Kumar pleads before us that equities must  weigh in favour of students, With reference to that plea, we  hold that  he  students  who  had  completed  the  whole  course,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

attended all the courses of study for the three sessions  of 12  months,  12 months and 18 months  respectively  and  had passed all the examinations in all the subjects, though  not in the sequential order required by the 327 regulations,  it  appears to us that the submission  of  the counsel  for the respondents that they being required to  go through the courses all over again and take the examinations after  attending the courses afresh, might lead to  hardship and might require consideration, In the words of Anne Sophie Swetchine: "The world has no sympathy with any but positive griefs;  it will  pity  you for what you lose, but never  for  what  you lack. We  think that their cases may perhaps have to  be  examined from  the  point  of  these  equities  by  the  Council   of Homeopathic System of Medicines.  The candidates who, as  on today, have attended all the courses and have passed all the examinations might make an appropriate representation to the Council  of Homeopathic System of Medicines (the  appellant) to consider their cases.  The representation shall be  filed within  a period of four weeks from today.  The  Council  of Homeopathic  System of Medicines (the appellant)  will  take appropriate  decision  within  one  month  thereafter.   The Council  in  doing so shall bear in mind  all  the  relevant circumstances,   including,  perhaps  the  spirit   of   the corresponding regulations under the Bihar Act, in which such sequential purpose is not insisted upon. Subject to the aforesaid directions, we reverse the impugned judgment of the High Court and ’glow the appeals.   However, there shall be no order as to costs., VPR.                                 Appeals allowed., 328