JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
(1) The Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, has framed the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations’). The Regulations, interalia, provide for the mode and manner of training of ‘Articled Clerk’. A person has to pass the examinations held by the Institute for practicing as Chartered Accountant. As a condition for taking the examination one has to undergo training as an ‘Articled Clerk’ with a practicing Chartered Accountant. One is required to complete the foundation course and pass the foundation examination before registration as an ‘Articled Clerk’. For joining the foundation course the minimum requirement is that one must pass the Senior Secondary Examination or a recognised course equivalent thereto. However, an exemption from passing the foundation course is granted to graduates securing specified percentage of marks as specified in Regulation 25 which reads as under:- “25.Admission to the foundation examination, fees and syllabus,- (1) No candidate shall be admitted to the foundation examination unless he produces a certificate from the head of the coaching organisation to the effect that he is registered with the coaching organisation and has complied with the requirements of the postal tuition scheme: Provided that commerce graduates who have passed the graduation examination with accountancy and auditing and mercantile law or commercial law) securing in the aggregate a minimum of 50% of the total marks in the examination or graduates other than commerce graduates who have passed the graduation examination with mathematics as one of the subjects securing in the aggregate a minimum of 60% of the total marks in the examination or graduates other than commerce graduates who have passed the graduation examination with any other subjects other than mathematics securing in the aggregate a minimum of 55% of the total marks in the examination shall be exempted from passing the foundation examination; Provided further that they shall be permitted to register themselves as articled/ audit clerks to receive practical training prescribed under these regulations, if found otherwise eligible.
(2) EXPLANATION- For the purpose of this regulation commerce graduate shall mean a graduate having passed the graduation examination with accountancy and auditing and mercantile law or commercial law as full papers, irrespective of any other subjects offered in the curriculum. (2) A candidate for the Foundation Examination shall pay such fees as may be fixed by the Council from time to time. (3) A candidate for the Foundation Examination shall be examined in the subjects prescribed in para 1-A of Sch.B.”X As would be seen from the above, to avail the benefit of exemption under the aforesaid Regulation, a commerce graduate is required to pass the graduation examination with Accountancy and Auditing and Mercantile law or commercial law as full papers, irrespective of any other subjects offered in the curriculum.
(3) Regulation 205 vests in Council the power to make orders to remove difficulties. Regulation 205(1) reads as under :- "205.Power to remove difficulties-(l) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of these regulations, the Council may, by general or special order, do anything not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty." (4) The Council of the Institute, in exercise of power under Regulation 205(1) passed a resolution in its meeting held from 27th to 29th November 1992 which reads as under :- "THE term 'full paper' in Explanation to Regulation 25(1) means a paper' carrying not less than 50 marks."
(5) The petitioner who had secured 50% marks (600 out of 1200) was denied the benefit of exemption under Regulation 25 and was informed by the Institute vide its letter dated 15th November 1994 that she is not eligible for registration as an ‘Articled Clerk’ since the Auditing paper carried less than 50 marks. Paper No.X which the petitioner had passed comprised of 3 parts i.e. Auditing, Income Tax and Sales Tax and these carried marks as below:- Auditing : 40 marks. Income Tax : 40 marks Sales Tax : 20 marks The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this petition praying that letter dated 15th November 1994 be not given effect to and has also prayed that ‘Explanation’ to Regulation 25 be quashed.
(6) Petitioner is a Commerce graduate of Delhi University having passed B.Com (Pass Course). Mr.Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Auditing was taught as full subject and not as elementary subject and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of exemption under Regulation 25 merely on the ground that Auditing Paper carries less than 50 marks. Learned counsel submits that the acceptance of the stand of the Institute would result in depriving the benefit of Regulation 25 to all B.Com (Pass) graduates of Delhi University. The further submission of learned counsel is that the resolution of the Council defining full paper whittles down the meaning of ‘Full Paper’ as given in Explanation to Regulation 25. Mr.Rishi also submits that ‘Explanation’ to Regulation 25 is vague and arbitrary and deserves to be struck down.
(7) We are unable to accept the contention strenuously urged by Mr.Rishi that there is no dissemble principle behind the Explanation to Regulation 25 or behind the resolution passed by the Council and both are liable to be quashed being arbitrary and vague. On the facts and circumstances of the case in hand the plea of arbitrariness or vagueness cannot be accepted. The graduates with specified percentage of marks, it seems, have been granted exemption from passing foundation course, if they qualify the papers specified in Regulation 25. It may be true that for grant of exemption of the type with which we are concerned, the knowledge and intellect of a person in a particular subject (Auditing herein) should be a relevant criteria or the guiding factor but how to judge it, is for experts in the field to decide. We are unable to accept the contention that marks given to the Auditing paper to treat it as full paper would be an irrelevant consideration in the circumstances of the present case. The details of 42 Universities filed by the Institute shows that in large number of Universities, the Auditing paper carries 100 marks and in none of the Universities Auditing paper carries less than 50 marks. In this view, it is not possible to accept the contention that the decision of the Council is arbitrary. The University and also the Council comprises of the experts in the filed and we do not think that any case has been made out for this court to sit over their judgment. It is not a matter on which the court possesses any expertise. Basically these are academic questions and are not liable to be reversed unless there are compelling reasons or the decisions are shown to be palpably arbitrary. We may only note that Delhi University, in line with other Universities, is already considering to raise the marks of Auditing paper to 50.
(8) Regulation 205 empowers the Council to make orders to remove the ‘difficulty’. But for the resolution of the Council, it could be said that ‘Full Paper’ should be one which carries 100 marks. The ‘difficulty’ has to be one arising in giving effect to the provisions of Regulation 25. It cannot be held that the decision of the Council as contained in its resolution as aforesaid, does not amount to removing ‘difficulty’ and it amounts to amending Regulation 25 and whittling down the meaning of ‘Full Paper’ as provided in the said Regulation. The resolution makes Regulation 25 workable. It cannot be held that the resolution violates the basic structure and primary features of the Regulation. It does not change, under the guise of removing a difficulty, the scheme and essential provisions of the Regulations. In absence of the resolution the difficulty can arise as to whether a paper carrying less than 100 marks would be a full paper or not within the contemplation of Regulation 25. For the reasons stated abe, we find no illegality either in the Explanation to Regulation 25 or in the resolution passed by the Council or in the impugned communication. We may, however, note that though, in a way, the resolution ensures for the benefit of Commerce graduates of Universities where the papers of Accountancy and Auditing and Mercantile Law or Commercial Law carry less than 100 marks but more than 50 but insofar as the Commerce graduates of Delhi University are concerned, they get no relief from the resolution since the Auditing paper in Delhi University carries less than 50 marks. The Delhi University, it has been represented before us, as noticed above, is already considering to raise the marks of Auditing paper to 50. We direct Delhi University to decide the matter expeditiously and in any case not later than end of April 1997. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to Delhi University forthwith.
(9) Subject to these directions the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.