Holding

Regulations 8‑10 must be given a literal interpretation; a candidate must complete the prescribed period of study (one year after the first DHMS exam and one and a half years after the second) before being admitted to the next examination, and a pass in a supplementary examination does not satisfy this requirement.

Summary

The respondents, students of the DHMS diploma course, failed several subjects, re‑appeared and eventually passed the first, second and third year examinations, but the Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine refused to allow them to sit the third‑year exam because they had not completed a full one‑year period of study between passing the first DHMS exam and appearing for the second, as required by the Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations, 1983. The respondents obtained a writ directing the Council to permit the exam; the High Court allowed the writ. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the literal meaning of Regulations 8‑10 and held that the regulations impose mandatory time‑gaps (one year after the first exam and one and a half years after the second) and that a pass in a supplementary examination does not satisfy these gaps nor does the "doctrine of relation back" apply. Consequently, the Council’s refusal was lawful, but the Court allowed the appeals and directed the respondents to make a representation to the Council within four weeks, with the Council to decide within a month, and made no order as to costs.

Issues considered

The interpretation of Regulations 8, 9 and 10 of the Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations, 1983 regarding the mandatory period of study between successive examinations.
Whether a pass in a supplementary examination satisfies the time‑gap requirement for admission to the next examination.
Whether the doctrine of relation back can be applied to supplementary examination results.
Whether the High Court’s construction of the Regulations was correct.
Whether the Council’s refusal to admit the respondents to the third‑year examination was legally valid.

Legislation cited

Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973s. 20, s. 33

Subjects

HomeopathyDHMS RegulationsSupplementary examinationEligibility for admissionStatutory interpretationDoctrine of relation backEducational qualificationsEquity

Judgment

A COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE,
PUNJAB AND ORS.
v.

B
SUCHINTAN AND ORS.

APRIL 21, 1993 ..
[ M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, DR. T.K. THOMMEN ANDS.
MOHAN,JJ.] r
Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973:

c Section 20-Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations, 1983 /Regu-
lations 3, 8-11- Construction of-literary interpretation sufficient-Eligibility
for admission to First, Second and Third DHMS examin,ation-Conditions-
Pattern of DHMS examinations-'Doctrine of relation back' not applicable.

D Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations, 1983-Regulations 8-
10-Whether a candidate to be pennitted to take the third year DHMS examina-
tion, 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.

E -
Education-Diploma in Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery- 711irdyear
examination ofDHMS-Whethera candidate to be pennitted to take the third)•ear
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.
F
Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations, 1983-Regulations 8-
10-Elig ib ility for admission to First, Second and Third DHMS
examinations-Conditions 'Supplementary'-Meaning of

Interpretation of Statutes-Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regula-
G lions, 1983-Regulation-8-10-language Plain-Hannonious interpretation
does not arise-"Supplementary"-Meaning of

ff Words and Phrases-"Supplementary"~Meaning of.

306
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATIUC SYSIBM v. SUCHINTAN 307

C.A.No. 2107193 A

The respondents appeared in the first year D.H.M.S (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. Simultaneously, the respondents appeared
B

in the first year D.H.M.S. examination and cleared all the papers. After re-
appearing in one or more subjects in the second year Supplementary exami-
nation in June, 1990, they were declared passed in the 2nd year D.H.M.S.
examination. c
The respondents joined the third year O.H.M.S. course and completed
the course of s~dy. When their examination forms were forward~ to the
appellant-Council, they declined to permit the respondents to app~ar in the
3rd year O.H.M.S. annual examination, because they did DIM ~omplete one
year course of study between passing the first O.H.M.s: e'xamination and D
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 OHMS
examination, commencing from 3.9.1991.
·E

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. F

Against thatorder 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 construc-
tion on regulation 11 of the Homeopathy (Diploma Course) OHMS Regula-
G
tions, 1983; that if a candidate passed on supplementary exa'mination, he
would have to wait till the next academic session; that none of-the Regulations
indicated 'a 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 H~gh
Courts on Regulations 8 to 10 was correct; that four chances afforded to the ff
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.
c
Allowing. the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1.1. The Regulations 8-10 of the Homeopathy (Diploma Cours(~)
DHMS Regulations, 1983 are plain enough and are susceptible only to literary
interpretation.
D
Maxwell: Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, Page 29, re-
ferred to.

1.2. For admission to the First D.H.M.S. examination:.
E
i) a student must have regularly attended the courses ofinstruc-

-
tion, theoretical and practical;

ii) for a period of not less than 12 months;

F
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:

·G 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.

H ii) Subsequent to the passing the First year- -
. COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATIIIC SYSTEM v, SUCHJNTAN 309

a) be must have regularly attended the coorses both theoretical and A:
practical;

b) for a period of at least one year;

c) to the satisfaction of the head of the College. (317-F-G)
B

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
e}l:amination are: c
i) ~.ftu yassing the Second D.H.M.S examination, o6e 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:
D

a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical and
practical;

b) for a period of 11/2 years;
E
c) to the satisfaction of the college. (318-F-G)

1.5. Mandatory requirements of Regulation 9 are;

i) The lapse ofone year period between the passing of First D.H.M.S. F
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)

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 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 has still one more chance to take this examination, what is to happen? H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A 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 th~ examination is: 12 months for First D.H.MS.
examination, 12 months for Second D.H.MS. examination and 18 months for
Third D.H.M.S examination. These put together with six months of compul-
B sory internship, make up the four years prescribed for the Course.Jn
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
c 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 ofit, is untrue. (321-A)
-
1.9. Whatever it is, a candidate has to complete all the subjects within
f'our chances. Should he fail to do so, he will have to undergo the course in all
D subje5ts for one year unless of course, he gets the exemption as stated in
prc:iV:iso 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. Ifa student were to sit idle at home after passing the supplementary
E
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
F make an appropriate representation to the Council of Homeopathic System
of Medicines (The appellant) to consider their cases. The representation shall
be fded within a period of four weeks. The Cmmcil of Homeopathic System
. of Medicines (the appellant) will take appropriate deem.a (327-C)

. 2. The adjective 'supplementary' means an examination to make up the
G
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. (322-8)

H
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATIIIC SYSlEM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J.] 311

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2107-10/ A
1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3;1992 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13587, 13588, 13926of1991 and L.P.A.
No. 118 of 1992.
B
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. C

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MOHAN, J. Leave granted.
D
All these appeals raise the identical i.ssue 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 ofC.W.P. No. 13587/91 which will be enough for
appreciating the issues involved. E

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
F
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
Vlofthe 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. G
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 IO deals with 3rdD.H.M.S examination, 11/2 years

-- subsequent to the passing of the second D.H.M.S. examination.

The resp~mdents appeared in the first year D.H.M.S. annual examination in H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A June, 1988. Since, they did not get required percentage of pass marks two or more
subjects, they had to re-appear. They were p~rmitted to join the 2nd year class after
June, 1988. Under the interim orders of the High Court made in C.W.P.No 437~
510/1990, 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
B 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
C recommended and forwarded their examination forms for the third year Examina-
tion 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 th.e 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
D 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.

E 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 IO 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
F
(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
G 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:
H

-I
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATIUC SYSIBM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J] 313

i) Subjects; A

ii) Time;

ii) Marks.

The duration of the examination is, first year: 12 months, Second Year: 12
B
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,
c

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 flt in within those four years. This D
is 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- E
tion 11 (iv) talks of supplementary examination. In that supplementary examina-
tion, 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, F
Clause (vi) prescribes:

i) Production of a certification;

.. ii) In addition, ifhe 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.
G

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 H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

· A subjects. Thus, it will be clear that all these Regulations talk of re-admission to an
examination in Orderto enable the failed Candidate to undergo supplementary-and
subsequent examinations. On completion of subject in any one of those examina-
tions within the four chances, he is declared to have passed the who le 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
· "B 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
C 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
D 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 exami-
nation 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 I I that if
E a candidate passes a supplementary examination, the insistence of one year
would require the candidate to wait for one more year. Therefore, ~e 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 idle till the next academic session. That is his own making.
On that score, the attempted harmonious construction by the High Court
F
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 IO is correct·

H
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.
--
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATIUC SYSTEM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J] 315

- Regulation 11 has to be read along with Regulations 8 to 10. It !s not correct A
to argue that Regulation l l 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 B
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 SecondD.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
c
examination.

As rightly held by the High Court, the word 'supplementary'.. denotes
supplementing t.> or in continuation of the annual examination. When!;. therefore,
prnvisional admission is given for the Second Year D.H.M.S, drurse, the failure D
to complete the First D.H.M.S. examination should not be put against the
respondents. If the Regulations are so literally interpreted, that will lead to
absurdity. It will run counter to the object of providing a supplementary examina-
:ion. This interpretion is holding the field for a long time. This was the reason why
i,n Jaininder Mohan and Orhers v. The council of Homeoparhic Sys rem of
Medicine. Punjab (1992) 1 I.LR. Punjab 159, the court took a view that passing E
in ttic supplementary examination will relate back to the date of annual examina-
tion. Otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the High Court, anamo_lous results would
follow.

In ·so far as the respondents have completed the examination, equities must
F
weigh in their favour as laid down by this Court in A. Sudha v. University of
Mysore and another AIR 1987 SC 2305. Chandigarh Administrarion & Ors. v
Mdnpreet Singh & Ors. [1992] l SCC 380, Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State
o/Maharashtra [1993] l SCC 211. The learned counsel also relies on Orissa
Homeopathic Regulations and contends that carry forward is pennitted in similar
Homeopathic Regulations. G

In order to appreciate the respective contentions, we have to analyse the
relevant Regulations relating to the DipiomaCourse in Homeopathy as contained
Homeopathy (Diploma course) OHMS Regulations, 1983. These Regulations are
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· H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 3 S.C.R.

A 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), G) & (k). They are to the following effect.

B "(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;

c G) 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;"

D 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
E 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
F 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) :
G

"A candidate may be admitted to the First D.H.M.S. examination
provided that he has regularly attended the following course of

H
instruction, theoretical and practical for a period of not less than 12
months at a Homeopathy College to the satisfaction ef the head of
the c.ollege".
-
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATIUC SYSIBM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J] 317

From the above, it is.clear for admission to the First. D .H.M.S. examination: A

i) a student must have regularly attended the courses of instruction,
theoretical and practical;

ii) for a period of not less than 12 months;
B

-- 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) :
c
"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 D

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 sub_sequent to his passing First D .H.M .S.
examination from a.recognised Homeopathic College to the satis-
faction of the head of the college." E

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 F
previously, This meari·s one year must elapse between thipassing 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 botb theoretical and practical; G

(b) for a period of at least one year;

tr) to the satisfaction of the head of the College.

Thus, unless and until, these two conditions are satisfied, a student is H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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 I 1/2 years
C previously, and

(b} has regularly attended the following courses of instructions both theoreti-
cal and practical in subjects of examination for a period of'at leas.t 1 1/2 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."
D

,Uere again, the conditions for eligibility for admission to Third D.H.M.S
examin~tion are:

i) After passing the Second D .H.M.S. examination, one and a half years must
E 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
F practical;

b} for a period of I l/2 years;

c) to the satisfaction of the college.

Thus, it will be clear that the pattern of the examination is as rightly urged
G
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.

ff One thing that carefully requires to be noticed is that all the three Regulations
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATIHC SYS'IEM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J] 319

8 to 10 speak of admission to an examination, First, Second and Third year A
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 B
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 body C
shal_l publish a list of successful candidates arranged in the follow-
ing manner:-

(a) the names androll numbers of the first ten candidates in order of
-t merit, and
D
(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.
E
(iv) A candidate who appears at the examination but fails to pass in
a subject or subjects may be admitted to supplementary exa~na
tion 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 publica-
tion of result of the first examination on payment of the prescribed
fee along with an application in the prescribed form. F

(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,
,
' G
(vi) If such a candidate fails to pass in the subject or subjects at the
supplei;nentary examination in the subject or subjects concerned, he
may appear in that subject or subjects at the next annual examina-
tion 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 H
'.--,
-~ ,·~·J-1:"'.'--:-·- -~ I
'-
320 .l - ,·_.....,;.·
-SUPREME COURT REPORTS " ,(1993) 3 S.C,R."

:.:-. " ,' \ -
of next academic year in the subject or subjects in which he had
failed. provided that all the parts of the exiuninatfon ~all be
-- co~leted ;.ithin four chances including the supplementary one, to
\(
be counted from the date when the complete examination becomes
due for the first time.

B (vii) If a candidate faiis 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. -
c
Provided that if a student appearing for the Third D.H.M.S. Holli.
examination bas 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. - -" =-
D
-(viii) All examinations shall be held OllSqclld~tes, time and places
-~ as the exariiining bOdy -inay determiRe'" -

(ix) The examining body may under exceptional circumstances

E partially or wholly cancel any examination conducted by it under
intimation to the Central CounCil of Homeopathy and arrange for ~~
conducting re~xamination in those subjects within a.period of
thirty days from the date of such_cancellation."

This Regulation deals with results and re4dmi$sion to an aamination. 'A
F close reading of the, above brings out the following:;: !

a
In clause (iv) as to what is to happen in the event'of candidate failing to pass
in a subjeci or subjects is spoken to. He may be admined to the supplementary
examination. Such a supplementary exaffiination is to ordinarily take place after
six weeks from the publication of result of Fusti Examination.
G -'

Supposing he passes in that subject or ~objects in the supplementary
examination he is declared to have passed at the 'examination as a whole. This _-
sboold obviously be so; because once he completes all the subjects, he has to
necessarily be declared to have passed. Merely on this language, "declared to have
H passed at the _examination as a whole", we are unable to understand as to how the
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSTEM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN. I] 321

"doctrine of relation back" could ever be invoked. The invocation of such a 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 w.ould 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.
B
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: c-
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 D
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
forone yea. unless of course, he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to Clause E
(vii). Nowhere do. we find i~ Regulation 11 'a 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 aft~r passing the ex.ami-
nation, 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 11 are sought to be "harmo.niously F.
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 Regula-
tion. 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. G
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 forone year. Therefore, if a candidate passes in the supplemen-
tary examination, the requirement of one year cannot be enforced. Worse still is H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1993) 3 S.C.R.

A a case of a student who passes only at the next annual examination. Cpuld be be
allowed to take the Second D.H.M.S. ex~nation 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.
B
The word 'supplement' is defined in Oxford Dictionary, Seventh Edition,
page 1072:

"think added to remedy deficiencies; part added to book etc, with
c further information, or to periodicaI for treatment of particular
matter(s);ofanangle,(Math.)itsdeficiencyfrom180(of.COMPLE-
M~); hence Al, ARY, (-me'n-) adjs. (supplementay benefit).
(ME,f.L. sup (plementum f. -plere fill; see-ment]"

Therefore, the adjective 'supplementary' means and examination to make up
D 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
E
elapse for second or Third D .H.M.S. exatinations as the case may "'6e. The stand
of the appellants counsel as seen from letter dated 12.12.1989 is ~s /onows:

"From:
-=
Dr. P.L. Verma, Secretary,
F Central Council of Homeopathy,
10, Community CentJ;e,
Basant Lok,
Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110037.
--
G To •
The Chairman,
The Council, Homoeopathic Systems of
Medicine,
3027-28, Sector 22-D,
H Chandigarh.
COUNCIL OF HOMEOt>'.°Arnrc SYSlEM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J] 323

Sub: Enforcement ofD.H.M.S (Diploma Course) Regulation 1983 A
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 cl_ass examination as a whole.

With reference to your letter No. CHSM-PV-134/89/1253 dated29/ B
30 November, 1989 on the subject noted above. I am to say that the
question of permitting to appear simultaneously for two examina-
tions 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 )'ear previously and has
regularly attended the course for one year. Similarly, no candidate
c

shall be admitted to the Third D.H.M.S. examination unless he.has
passed \he second D.H.M.S. examination l 1/2 years preyiously
and has also attended the course for a period O~;<} ·112 years
subsequent to his passing of the Second D.H.M.S.'EXamination. D

COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE
3027~28, Sector 22-D
CHANDIGARH (UT)

E
No. CHCH-PV 9134/8~/AT-198-200 Dated 5.2.90

Copy forwarded to the Principal, Lord Mahaveera Homeopathic
Medical College, Ludhiana/Abohar/Chandigaih for information
and necessary action. This may please be notified for information of

-- all the students under intimation to the undersigned. The above
guidelines/4irections of the Central Council may please be strictly
followed and observed in respect of matters i,ndicated therein.

sd/-
F

(R.K. Sharma)
-Registrar, G
No. CHMS/PV /134/89/AI-201-210 Dated 5.2.90."

This stand in our opinion is correct.

If a student were to sit idle at home after passing the supplementary H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A examination that is hi~ own making. To avoid such a situation, the Regulation
cannot be construed causing violence to the language.

These RegulatiQns are plain enough and are susceptible only to literary
interpretation. In 'Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes' 12th Edition, itis
stated at page 29 as under:
B
"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 ca~e," said Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest in a revenue case,
"calls for a full and fair application of particular statutory language
c to particular facts as found. The desirability or the undesirability of
one conclusion as compared with another cannot furnish a guide in
reachi~g a decision." (Shop and Store Developments Ltd. v. I.R.C.
(1967) l 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
D to conl.rnonsensethe 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
E appears why they should not be embraced or excluded. (Whitehead
v. James Stott Ltd. (1949) l K.B. 358). Tlie 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.l). ----
F 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:

G "C.W.P. No. 13926of 1991 Miss Kamaljit&eightothers ofL.M. Homoeo-
pathic Medical College, Ludhiana.

1st prof.
Annual/88 Supp/88 Annual/89
H Respondent No. Re-appear Re-appear Pass
...... COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSlEM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J] 325

1, Miss Kamaljit in 3 in 2 Contd. A
d/o Sawarn subjects subjects
Singh (Admitted
in 1987)
Resp.2, Re-appear pass
Sh. Narinder in 2 Contd
Kumar s/o subjects B
Satya Pal Goyal
(Admitted in 1987)
Resp. No. 3 Shri Re-appear pass Contd.
MohdRamzan in 3
Thind s/o SH. subjects
Moh. Yousaf
c
(Admitted in ,198-7}

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
D
Jaininder Mohan in 2 in I
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 E

- (Admitted in
1987)
Res. No. 7
Narinder Singh
Re-appear
in I
- pass

s/o Sh. Sant- · -subject
Singh (Admitted F
inl~9~7)
Res. No. 8
lnderjit Mehta G
d/o Anant Ram
Mehta (Admitted
in 1987)
Resp. No. 9 Fail Re-appear pass "
Tejvinder Singh, in l
slo Jaswant Singh H
(Admitted in 1987)
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A Continued Part

Ilnd Prof. (CWP No. 481 of 1991) 3rd Prof. (CWP No:
13926/91)
Suppl./89 Annual/90 Suppl/91

Re-appt:ar Re-appear Re-appear Allowed to appear
B in 3
subjects
in 3
subjects
in 1
subject
as per court
order dt. 6.9.91 by
the Principal
--
of L. Homoeopathic
Medical College,
c Re-appear ~e-appear pass As per court
in 3
subjects
in 1
subject
.
order dt. 6.9.91

(without
court
order)
D
Re-appear Re-appear pass Not appeared
in~ ;in 1
subjects subject

Re-appear Re-appear pass As per court
E in 3 . in 1 · 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
F in 1 pass Order
subject

Re-appear Re-appear pass
dt. 6.9.91

Allowed to
--
in 2 in 2 appear as
subjects subjects ·per Court
G orderdt. 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, attended all the courses of study for the three sessions of 12
months, 12 months and 18 months respectively and had passed all the exarnina•
ff
tions in all the subjects, though not in the sequential order required by the
COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSlEM v. SUCHINTAN [MOHAN, J] 327

regulations, it appears to us that the submission of the counsel for the respondents A
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
.. B
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 equiti~s 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 ofHomeo- c
pathic System of Medicines (the appellant) to consider their cases. The represen-
tation 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 regula-
tions under the Bihar Act, in which such sequential purpose is not insisted upon. D
Subject to, the aforesaid directions, werevers~'(he impugned judgment of the
High Court and 3,llow the appeals. However, ther~hall be no order as to costs.

VPR. Appeals allowed.

-
-

....'