Judgment

MOHAN, J.:- Leave granted.

2. All these appeals raise the identical issue as to the interpretation of the Regulations relating to Diploma in Homoeopathic Course. Hence, they are dealt with under one and the same judgment.

3. We will refer to the facts of C.W.P.No. 13587/ 91 which will be enough for appreciating the issues involved.

4. The respondents joined the Homoeopathic Medical College, Chandigarh in the year 1987 to secure a diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter referred to as DHMS). The said course is of a duration of four years. It is divided into 3 1/2 years of academic study and six months of internship. The course of study, their duration and the scheme of examination are regulated by the Homoeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter called the Regulations). These Regulations have been framed by the Central Council of Homoeopathy under Sec. 20 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. Part VI of the Regulations deals with examination. Regulations 8 to 10 occurring in Part VI are relevant for our purpose. Regulation 8 talks of first D.H.M.S. examination. That examination has to be held at the end of 12 months of the Course. Regulation 9 deals with Second D.H.M.S. examination to be held at the end of second year. Regulation 10 deals with 3rd D. H. M. S. examination, 1 1/2 years subsequent to the passing of the second D.H.M.S. examination.

5. The respondents appeared in the First Year D. H. M. S. annual examination in June, 1988. Since, they did not get required percentage of pass marks in two or more subjects, they had to re-appear. They were permitted to join the 2nd Year class after June, 1988. Under the interim orders of the High Court made in C.W.P. No. 437-510/1990, they appeared-in the examination. The respondents simultaneously took their third chance for the First Year D.H.M.S. examination and finally, cleared all the papers. They also got re-appeared in one or more subjects in the 2nd Year D.H.M.S. examination and accordingly, took supplementary examination in June, 1990. They were declared pass in that examination.

6. The respondents joined the. Third Year D.H.M.S. examination and completed the course of study. In view of that, the Principal of the College in August, 1991 recommended and forwarded their examination forms for the Third Year Examination to the appellant namely, the Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicines, Punjab. The appellant declined to permit the respondents to take the examination since they had not completed one year course of study between passing the First D.H.M.S. examination and appearing in the second one; hence, they were not eligible to appear in the Third Year examination. In other words, the examination had not been passed in accordance with the scheme prescribed under Regulations 8 and 9. It was under these circumstances, the writ petitions came to be preferred before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No. 13587/ 91 praying for a direction to permit them to take Third Year D.H.M.S. examination commencing from 3-9-1991.

7. The writ petition came up before a Division Bench. By judgment dated 9-3-1992 allowing that writ petition on the reasoning that if the minimum course of study as provided by Regulations 9 and 10 if held to be mandatory, such a provision would be liable to be struck down in view of the decision of the Court in C.W.P. No. 2307/ 88, Gurinder Pal Singh v. Punjabi University, which in turn has followed single Judge decision reported in Harinder Kaur Chandok (Minor) v. The Punjab School Education Board through its Secretary, (1987)-92 Pun LR 638: (AIR 1988 Punj & Har 244). It is the correctness of this judgment, which has been questioned in all these appeals.

8. The learned Solicitor General took us through Regulations at length. Part II deals with course of study. Regulation 3 states that a Diploma Course in Homoeopathy shall be spread over a period of four years. Those four years include six months compulso