2017 (5) TMI 541 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition Denied for Unlimited Term Exemption: Court Upholds Three-Term Limit

The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption for unlimited terms and the amendment limiting the exemption ... Exemption from appearance - benefit of carry forward - limitation of exemption to three consecutive terms - retrospective operation of amendment - power of statutory body to amend regulations - interpretation of inconsistent bilingual versionsExemption from appearance - limitation of exemption to three consecutive terms - power of statutory body to amend regulations - Whether the Amendment to Regulation 41(2) limiting the benefit of exemption to three consecutive terms applies to the petitioner and whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption for unlimited attempts. - HELD THAT: - The Court proceeded on the conceded premise that the Institute had power to amend its Regulations. The Amendment did not abolish the right of exemption but limited its duration to three consecutive terms immediately succeeding the term in which the exemption accrued. Limiting the duration of an existing privilege is within the regulatory power of the Institute and aimed at maintaining examination standards; no right to perpetuity in the exemption existed. The petitioner had availed the exemption in December 2012, June 2013 and December 2013, and therefore the benefit as limited by the Amendment had been exhausted. The petitioner's challenge did not dispute the Institute's power to amend, and the Court found no illegality in applying the Amendment to restrict further exemptions. [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]Amendment limiting exemption to three consecutive terms is applicable; petitioner is not entitled to unlimited exemptions and cannot claim exemption for the June 2014 paper.Retrospective operation of amendment - exemption from appearance - Whether the Amendment was being given retrospective effect so as to deprive the petitioner of exemptions already accrued before the Amendment came into force. - HELD THAT: - The Amendment was notified on May 25, 2012. The Court accepted the Institute's explanation that earlier chances given before the Amendment came into force were not taken into account and that the Amendment was not applied to the June 2012 term because call letters had already been dispatched; thus the June 2012 term was not counted as an exemption. The petitioner therefore was not prejudiced by retrospective operation; rather he benefitted by the non-application to June 2012. [Paras 12]The Amendment was not given retrospective operation to the petitioner's detriment; the petitioner was not entitled to argue unlawful retroactivity.Interpretation of inconsistent bilingual versions - Whether the inconsistency between the Hindi and English versions of the Amendment entitled the petitioner to relief. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted a variance between the Hindi wording and the English wording (Hindi referring to three consecutive years, English to three consecutive terms). However the petitioner did not assert entitlement to three years as distinct from three terms. Therefore it was unnecessary to resolve which version should prevail and the inconsistency did not assist the petitioner. [Paras 16, 17, 18]Bilingual inconsistency noted but immaterial to petitioner's case; no relief granted on that ground.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed. The Amendment to Regulation 41(2) limiting the benefit of exemption to three consecutive terms was validly applied to the petitioner; the petitioner was not entitled to unlimited exemptions and no relief is warranted on grounds of retrospective application or the noted bilingual variance. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to exemption from appearance in the Business Valuation paper.2. Applicability of the amended Regulation 41(2) of the ICAI Regulations.3. Retrospective effect of the amendment.4. Notification and awareness of the amendment.5. Validity and power of the respondent to amend the Regulations.6. Difference between Hindi and English versions of the amendment.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Exemption from Appearance in the Business Valuation Paper:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring entitlement to exemption from the Business Valuation paper for the final CMA exam conducted in June 2014. The petitioner argued that having scored more than 60% in the paper during the December 2011 exam, he was entitled to an exemption for unlimited terms as per the pre-amended Regulation 41(2). The petitioner had availed this exemption in subsequent exams until June 2014, when the exemption was revoked by the respondent, marking him “absent” in the said paper.2. Applicability of the Amended Regulation 41(2) of the ICAI Regulations:The respondent argued that the amendment to Regulation 41(2) limited the exemption to three consecutive terms and was applicable to the petitioner. The amendment was notified on May 25, 2012, and the petitioner was informed through various means including the Admit Card and FAQs. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the power of the respondent to amend the Regulations, and the amendment was applied uniformly to all candidates.3. Retrospective Effect of the Amendment:The petitioner contended that the amendment was being given retrospective effect. The court disagreed, stating that the amendment was notified on May 25, 2012, and did not count the number of chances given before its enforcement. The exemption was applied for the exams of December 2012, June 2013, and December 2013, and the term of June 2012 was not counted due to logistical reasons, benefitting the petitioner.4. Notification and Awareness of the Amendment:The respondent argued that the petitioner was aware of the amendment as it was mentioned in the Admit Card, FAQs, and the prospectus. The court found this argument convincing, noting that the petitioner had acknowledged and consented to the terms of the amendment. The court emphasized that the petitioner, after exhausting all exemptions and failing to clear the examination, challenged the amendment, which was not permissible.5. Validity and Power of the Respondent to Amend the Regulations:The court held that the respondent had the power to amend the Regulations under the Cost & Works Accountants Act, 1959, and the amendment aimed to maintain the standard of examinations. The petitioner’s right to exemption was not perpetual and could be limited by the respondent. The court cited previous judgments to support the validity of the amendment and the respondent’s discretion in implementing it.6. Difference Between Hindi and English Versions of the Amendment:The petitioner pointed out a discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of the amendment, with the Hindi version referring to three consecutive years and the English version to three consecutive terms. The court noted that this discrepancy was irrelevant to the petitioner’s case, as the petitioner did not claim entitlement to exemption for three years instead of three terms. Therefore, the court did not delve into which version would prevail.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to exemption for unlimited terms and the amendment limiting the exemption to three consecutive terms was valid and applicable. The court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments regarding retrospective effect, notification, and the discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions of the amendment.