B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to suitably amend the regulation No. 38 by incorporating or inserting the provision like regulation No. 37(I)(C) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Regulations'] and declare the petitioner as successful in the Final Examination of Chartered Accountancy, held in the months of May, 1991.
(2.) THE petitioner, after passing his B.Com. Examination, got himself registered as an Articled Clerk for persuing his studies in the Chartered Accountancy Course. He appeared in the Intermediate Examination and passed the same. After clearing the Intermediate Examination, he appeared in the Final Examination of Chartered Accountancy Course. He got 192 marks out of 400 in Group -I and 210 marks out of 400 in Group -ll. He was declared successful in Group -II examination, but declared 'failed' in Group -I as he did not obtain the requisite 50% marks. Dissatisfied with the result, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the regulation 38 of the Regulations, which deals with the requirement of passing the Final Examination, is discriminatory because it provides a different standard to qualify the Intermediate Examination and Final Examination. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the standard for qualifying the Intermediate and Final Examinations should be the same as they form the same class. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Council has proposed an amendment in the regulation No. 38 and the provisions of that amended regulation should be applied to the case of the petitioner and he be declared as successful in the examination. The learned Counsel for the respondent, i.e., the Institute of Chartered Accountants, on the other hand, submitted that the Council has been bestowed with the powers to maintain, control and regularise the standard and status of the profession and the Members of the Institute. The Council, in exercise of the powers, looking into the responsibility bestowed upon the profession on the basis of the recommendations made by the Experts, enacted regulation 38 prescribing the minimum requirement of passing the Final Examination. It has, further, been argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Intermediate Examination and the Final Examination form two separate classes and greater responsibility lies upon the Members after qualifying the Final Examination and, therefore, the level of knowledge and expertise is more expected from the examinee for the Final Examination and there is no discrimination as suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the amendment has only been proposed in regulation 38 and the objections have been invited, but regulation 38 has not yet been amended and, therefore, the benefit of the provisions of the proposed amendment to regulation 38 is not available to the petitioner.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;