Stipend regulation for articled clerks upheld as a valid training measure with rational population-based classification.

Regulation 48 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, was upheld as a valid exercise of the Council's regulatory power under the parent Act. The stipend payable to articled clerks was treated as part of the training structure, intended to meet pocket expenses, compensate services rendered, and attract capable students to the profession; the population-based classification was held to have a rational nexus with differing economic conditions and was not violative of Article 14. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) also failed because the stipend obligation was a statutory incident of the profession and not an impermissible restriction. The regulation was therefore not ultra vires or unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: Whether Regulation 48 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 prescribing stipend rates for articled clerks based on the population of the place of service was unconstitutional, ultra vires the parent Act, violative of Article 14, and an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The regulation was traced to the Council's power under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 to regulate the engagement and training of articled clerks and to frame regulations for carrying out the objects of the Act. The stipend was held to be part of the training structure, intended to meet pocket expenses of articled clerks, remunerate services rendered, and attract bright students to the profession. The classification based on population was treated as a mode of fixing stipend with reference to the economic conditions of different places and was found to have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court also noted that the amendment operated prospectively from 1-10-1989 and that no material was produced to show any contractual hiring that would exclude the petitioners from the regulatory scheme. The contention under Article 19(1)(g) was rejected because the obligation to pay stipend was a statutory incident of the profession and not an impermissible restriction.

Conclusion: Regulation 48 was upheld and the challenge under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed; the regulation was not ultra vires or unconstitutional.

---