LexCOUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SUCHINTAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, B c D E - F PUNJAB AND ORS. v. SUCHINTAN AND ORS. APRIL 21, 1993 [ M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ, DR. T.K. THOMMEN ANDS. MOHAN,JJ.] Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973: 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. 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. Education-Diploma in Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery- 711irdyear examination of DHMS-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. 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 .. r - COUNCIL OF HOMEOPA TIUC SYSIBM v. SUCHINTAN 307 C.A.No. 2107193 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 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. 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 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. 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 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- 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. A B c D ·E F G 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 A B c D E F 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R. 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.