ivil Appeal No2560 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 1211988 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
No 685 of 1987
AND Civil Appeal No 1639 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 861987 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 1488 of 1987
GL Sanghi MN Krishmani Diwan Balak Ram and RK Singh for the Appellant in CA No 2560 of 1988
Rajender Sachar Sanjay Sareen Vivek Gambhir SK Gambhir for the Appellant in CA No 1639 of 1988
Ashwani Kumar TC Sharma and SN Khare for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
These two appeals by special leave brought from the judgments and orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated June 8 1987 and January 12 1988 dismissing the writ PG NO 284 petitions filed by each of the appellants substantially involve a question as to the interpretation of Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post Graduation Course Clinical Para clinical and Non clinical Courses in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh Rules 1984  Rules  for short
The question raised is one of moment as it involves the right to admission to a seat in the Post Graduate course in Medicine  Surgery in a Medical college hereinafter referred to as the PG course in MDMS falling vacant in the midst of  or towards the end of  an academic year which we believe is a problem facing all the States
First the facts
In these cases the facts are not in dispute
In Dr Ajay Pradhan s case for the academic year 1986 87 commencing from September 1986 there were nine seats reserved for the post graduate course in the clinical subject of General Medicine for the GR Medical College Gwalior
All the nine seats were filled by the Dean Medical College from amongst candidates strictly on the basis of merit ie by candidates placed at serial Nos 1 to 9 on the recommendation of the College and Hospital Council
The appellant Dr Ajay Pradhan who was placed at serial No 15 obviously could not be given admission to the PG course in MD in General Medicine and was instead placed at serial No 6 in the waiting list
Later on he was given admission to the Diploma course in Radiology on 4 1086 and he duly joined that course on 61096 but failed to appear at the examination
On 11787 Dr Arun Yadav one Of the Selected candidates who stood first in the merit list and was admitted to the PG course in MD in General Medicine met with a tragic death in a road accident
Inasmuch as his death occurred towards the end of the academic year the authorities took no steps to fill up the seat
However on the death of Dr Arun Yadav the appellant staked a claim to fill up the vacant seat under r 10 of the Rules on the ground that the candidates placed above him in the merit list had been rendered ineligible having either opted for the Diploma course in Radiology or had left their house job
That claim of his having been turned down he moved the Gwalior Bench of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution
A Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated January 12 1988 dismissed the writ petition holding that the claim of the appellant in terms of r 10 was misconceived
The facts in Dr Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava s case are these
For the academic year 1986 87 commencing from August 1986 there were five seats reserved for the PG course in MS in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for the Medical College Jabalpur
On March 2 1987 the State Government passed an PG NO 285 order transferring the seat occupied by Dr Smt
Dhurupkar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology from the Medical College Jabalpur to Medical College Bhopal with a view to accommodate her and presumably because such transfer involved financial implications
On her transfer to Medical College Bhopal Dr Smt
Dhurupkar continued to draw her stipend of Rs800 per month reserved against one of the five seats in that discipline for Medical College Jabalpur
The appellant Dr Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava who was placed at Serial No 7 in the waiting list moved the authorities seeking admission to the PG course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Medical College Jabalpur contending that the seat had fallen vacant because of the transfer of Dr Smt
Dhurupkar and had therefore become available in terms of r 10 of the Rules
The authorities having disallowed his claim the appellant moved the High Court by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution
The High Court by its order dated June 8 l987 dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that the seat occupied by Dr Smt
Dhurupkar had been transferred with her and hence the same in fact was not available
The main question that falls for determination in these appeals is whether in terms of r 10 of the Rules there is a right to admission to a seat in the PG course in MDMS falling vacant in a medical college in the midst of  or towards the end of  an academic year to which it pertains
A further question arises in one of these appeals as to whether the State Government has the power to transfer a seat in any of the disciplines in the PG course in MDMS reserved for a medical college to another medical college in the State in order to accommodate a particular post graduate student
The Medical Council of India constituted under the and one of whose duties is to prescribe the minimum standards of medical education made recommendations on February 1213 1971 prescribing uniform standards for post graduate medical education throughout India which having been approved by the Government of India and as revised from time to time have the status of Regulations under section 33 of the Act
The Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India provide inter alia for the different specialities for which PG courses in MDMS as also Diploma courses in certain disciplines may be conducted and the norms for admission of students to the PG courses in MDMS as also to the Diploma courses
According to the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India the student teacher ratio for the PG course in MDMS is to be maintained at 11
The relevant regulation prescribing a student teacher ratio at 11 for PG NO 286 the PG course in MDMS made with a view to maintain the minimum standards of medical education for the PG course in MDMS insorfar as relevant is as follows General 1 For MDMS degree in clinical subjects there shall be proper training in basic medical sciences related to the disciplines concerned as well as paper in these subjects at the examination
In the case of MD  MS in basic medical sciences there should be training in applied aspect of the subject and a paper on the subject
2 In all post graduate courses whether clinical or basic medical sciences preventive and social aspects should be emphasised
3 This should be a part of the examination in the degree courses as this gives training in research methodology
4 The student teacher ratio should be such that the number of post graduate teachers to the number of post graduate students admitted per year be maintained at 11
For the proper training of the post graduate students there should be a limit to the number of student admitted per year
For this purpose every unit should consist of atleast 3 full time post graduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for post graduate teachers in the unit is more than three then the number of students can be increased proportionately
For this purpose one student should associate with one post graduate teacher
5 The selection of post graduates both for degree and diploma courses should be strictly on the basis of academic merit In most of the States rules have been framed by the various State Governments under article 162 of the Constitution regulating the manner of admission of students to the PG course of studies in MDMS in the medical college in the State
The number of seats available for the PG courses in PG NO 287 MDMS and for the Diploma courses in various disciplines is therefore limited
There cannot be increase in the number of seats without the sanction of the Medical Council of India and without corresponding increase in the strength of the teaching staff which necessarily involves financial implications
The whole controversy turns on the purport and effect of r 10 of the Rules prescribing the manner in which seats available in any particular year are to be filed and is in these terms 10
The seats available in any particular year will be filled up in that year
No candidates will be admitted against the seats remaining vacant from previous year
 We must interpret r 10 by the written text
If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous we are bound to construe than in their ordinary sense and give them full effect
The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction
Where the language is explicit its consequences are for Parliament and not for the Courts to consider
Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit said Viscount Simon in King Emperor vs Bensari Lal Sarma LR 1945 72 Ia 57 at p 70 we must give effect to it whatever may be the consequences for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature
We do not see why the same rule of construction should not apply to the Rules framed by the State Governments under article 162 of the Constitution
On a plain construction r 10 is in two parts
The power to admit a student under the first part arises when a seat falls vacant in a particular year
The words filled up in that year  necessarily qualify the preceding words the seats available in any particular year 
It must logically follow that a necessary concomitant of the power under the first part of r 10 is the availability  of the seat being filled up in the academic year to which it pertains
The words filled up in that year which follow clearly imply that the vacancy cannot be carried over to the next academic year or years
That construction of ours is reinforced by the second part of r 10 which by the use of negative language clearly creates a bar against the seat being filled up in the next or succeeding academic year
What is implicit in the first part of r 10 is made explicit in the second part
The use of the negative words in the second part No candidates will be admitted  etc  are clearly PG NO 288 prohibitory in nature and exclude the applicability of the carry for ward rule
It follows that if a seat falls vacant for any reason namely that the candidte selected in order of merit does not join the PG course in MD MS in a medical college or by reason of his death or otherwise and due to inaction on the part of the authorities the seat is not filled up in the academic year to which it pertains there is no question of the vacancy being carried forward to the next academic year
Rule 10 is a specific provision made for the benefit of the merit candidates who are placed in the waiting list
Normally the question of a seat being filled up must arise at the commencement of the academic year or soon thereafter
In our considered opinion on the terms of r 10 as it exists no other view is possible
When a seat falls vacant in any particular academic year there is a corresponding duty cast on the authorities to take immediate steps to fill up the same
There is no question of a right of admission to a seat falling vacant in the midst of or towards the end of the academic year
As per the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India the PG course in MDMS is a three years  course including one year s house job
This is followed by a two years  degree course
The two years  degree course in a medical college as prescribed by the Medical Council of India is a period of intensive training
A post graduate student has not only to write a dissertation or thesis under the supervision of the Professor or Associate Professor who is his guide but has also to take part in seminars group discussions clinical meetings besides attending classes
There is also emphasis on in service training and not on didactic lectures
The in service training requires the student to be a resident in the campus and he has the graded responsibility in the management and treatment of patients entrusted to his care
For this purpose adequate number of posts of clinical residents or tutors are created
The period also includes adequate training in the basic sciences of Anatomy Physiology Bio Chemistry Bio Physics
Pharmacology and Pathology in all aspects relevant to the speciality concerned
He is also required to participate in the teaching and training programmes of under graduate students or interns in their subjects
The examination for the PG course in MDMS consists of i thesis or dissertation ii written papers
iii clinical oral and practical examination
There are four theory papers for the post graduate degree examination of which one has to be on Applied Basic Sciences
The clinical examination is aimed at eliciting the knowledge of the student to undertake independent work as a Specialist
The oral and practical examinations are meant to test his knowledge on PG NO 289 investigative procedures techniques and other aspects of the speciality
The syllabus prescribed by the Medical Council of India for the PG course in MDMS as also the student teacher ratio of 11 virtually negate the right to admission to a seat falling vacant in the midst of or towards the end of the academic year to which it pertains
In Ajay Pradhan s case the High Court dismissed the writ petition principally on the ground that in terms of r 10 of the Rules he was not entitled to any relief
Dr TN Singh J speaking for himself and Ram Murti Rastogi J construed the words filled up in that year  in r 10 as meaning that a vacancy in any particular academic year must be filled up in that year
According to him the power to admit a student under r 10 must be availed of either before the academic year commences or very soon thereafter so that a candidate placed in the waiting list admitted under r 10 does not suffer serious loss of study due to belated admission
Further he rightly observes the second part of r 10 mandates that if any seat has not been filled up in the academic year to which it pertains the exercise cannot be undertaken in the succeeding year and it furnishes the rationale behind the provision and said An academic course cannot be compressed to accommodate any particular candidate who comes late
Because no separate or special  arrangement can be made for a latecomer for imparting instructions to him
Any other view would not make a reasonable reading or construction of the Rule in its context and setting for each candidate has to be not only examined periodically with respect to instructions imparted the pre requisite therefore has also to be fulfilled by rendering instructions to him during the whole period of the course
We have no doubt that when a seat is allotted a date has to be specified by which it has to be availed
Therefore it shall not be deemed filled up  if it is not availed
Indeed it would then become the duty of the concerned authority to fill up the same by offering it to any other eligible candidate according to merit
In such a case a decision has obviously to be taken to do so either before the session commences or very soon thereafter so that the new comer does not suffer serious loss of studies due to belated admission
 We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge
PG NO 290 We shall now deal with a couple of decisions to which we were referred to by learned counsel for the appellants during the course of their arguments
It was submitted that the High Court has consistently been taking a view that it has the power as well as the duty to issue an appropriate writ direction or order for the backlog  of seats to be filled up whenever it finds that the authorities have acted in violation of the norms prescribed by the relevant rules and a deserving candidate has been wrongly denied admission to such a professional course of studies
It seemingly appears to be so but on closer scrutiny the decisions relied upon are clearly distinguishable on facts
There are three decisions we must mention Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla vs State of MP  Ors Misc
Petition No 29783 decided on 17484 Rekha Saxena vs State of MP  Ors and Dr Sunil Gajendragadkar vs State of MP Misc
Petition No 5785 decided on 11385
In Dr Urmilla Shukla s case the facts were these
Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla had applied for admission to the PG course in MS in Gynaecology and Obstetrics as well as to the Diploma course in that discipline in GR Medical College Gwalior for the academic year 1983 84
It was not in dispute that there were 7 Lecturers in Obstetrics  Gynaecology in that College and as such 7 students had to be admitted for the PG course in MS in Gynaecology and Obstetrics
As per r 22 of the Rules the State Government had fixed the ratio of 23rd for the merit candidates and 13rd for the candidates in Government Service as Assistant Surgeons or equivalent posts for admission to Post Graduate course in Gynaecology
No rules had been framed for working out the ratio of 23rd and 13rd
Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla stood fifth in the merit list
However the authorities did not select her for the studies in MS course in Obstetrics  Gynaecology for the academic session starting from August 1983 but gave her admission to the Diploma course
She made a representation that she should have been given admission to the PG course in MS in Obstetrics  Gynaecology and not to the Diploma course contending that there was no justification now the ratio of 43 had been worked out
The Government however rejected the representation and there upon she moved the High Court
The High Court allowed the writ petition and struck down the decision of the State Government dated August 30 1983 fixing the ratio at 43 as being wholly arbitrary and without any rational basis and held that the ratio should have been 52
CP Sen J speaking for himself and RC Shrivastava J explained that 23rd of 7 came to 4666 while 13rd was 2333
and the question was now the figure had to be rounded PG NO 291 off for filling up the 7 seats
The learned Judge explained that the proper method would be that if the figure is more than half the same has to be rounded off as 1 while if the figure is less than half it is not to be reckoned
The High Court accordingly issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Government to give admission to Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla to the Post Graduate course in Obstetrics  Gynaecology and permit her to appear at the MS examination in that discipline
It is however necessary to observe that the learned Judge mentioned that out of 7 seats for the PG course of studies in Obstetrics  Gynaecology one seat had been kept vacant probably because of the filing of the writ petition by Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla and therefore there could be no impediment to the grant of admission to her and cited a precedent under similar circumstances during the earlier year
Dr Miss Sushma Dixit had been admitted to the MS course in Obstetrics  Gynaecology because one of the candidates selected had gone abroad without permission and her admission had been cancelled
He further pointed out that Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla was pursuing her studies in the Diploma course in Obstetrics  Gynaecology and the syllabus in the MS in that discipline for the first year was the same and therefore there could be no difficulty in her way in determining the percentage of attendance to make her eligible to appear at the examination
The decision in Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla s case therefore turned on its own facts
The decision in Rekha Saxena s case was an aftermath of the decision in Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla s case Dr Rekha Sexena had applied for admission only to the Diploma course in Gynaecology  Obstetrics and she rightly contended that the ratio for the PG course in MG between merit candidates and Assistant Surgeons should have been 52 and she being placed at serial No 4 in the merit list should have been admitted to the Diploma course
She complained that after Dr Urmilla Shukla was given admission to the MS course she made an application that she be given provisional admission to the Diploma course on the assurance that if ultimately Dr Urmilla Shukla had to come back to the Diploma course she would walk out and further that she could not claim any stipend for the period of her studies and that though the High Court allowed the writ petition of Dr Urmilla Shukla and the College Council recommended her case for admission to the Diploma course the authorities turned down her claim on the ground that she could not be given admission in 1984 against the quota for the academic year 1983 84
The petitioner in her rejoinder pointed out the instance of Dr Miss Sushma Dixit who was given admission to the MS course in Gynaecology  Obstetrics in the month of March 1983 PG NO 292 though she was doing her Diploma course for the academic year 1982 83 and made a grievance that she was being discriminated against as the authorities were adopting different yardsticks in her case
In the return filed by the State Government the facts were not disputed
All that was said was that against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court in Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla s case the State Government had taken an appeal to the Supreme Court and therefore her seat in the Diploma course was kept vacant and had not been declared to be available for any other candidate
Upon this basis it was asserted that as there was no seat vacant no admission could be granted to Dr Rekha Saxena
At the hearing of the writ petition the Government s appeal in Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla s case was still pending
GL Oza Actg
speaking for himself and Rampal Singh J allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner Dr Rekha Saxena be given provisional admission to the Diploma course in the vacancy caused on admission being granted to Dr Mrs Urmilla Shukla to the MS course
The High Court repelled the contention that the petitioner was a candidate for admission to a course for the academic year 1983 84 and could not be admitted in the year 1984 and observed It is strange that this request of the petitioner dated 2681983 was ultimately turned down by the respondents by an order dated 2541984 practically eight months after this prayer was made by the petitioner
This delay in taking a decision on such matters when every day that passes in the life of a professional candidate is materially speaks volumes about the efficiency of this department and the rejection is on this basis that the petitioner was selected for the year 1983 and could not be admitted in the year 1984
This logic of this order it appears is not defended in the return and a new defence has been raised in the return that as the case of Dr Smt
Urmilla Shukla is not yet finally decided and is pending in the Supreme Court the seat has not been declared vacant although it is not disputed that the seat is and was vacant in fact
It is peculiar that if Dr Smt
Urmilla Shukla could be given a provisional admission why the petitioner could not have been given provisional admission immediately when she had herself offered in terms which would throw no liability on the respondents if ultimately she had to go back but it appears that her application was not considered and ultimately practically major part of the session was wasted PG NO 293 and then the refusal was on the ground of delay for which the authorities themselves were responsible
It is therefore plain that this kind of attitude could not be justified
 It was then observed It is also interesting that in fact the selection of a candidate for admission to a course is for the academic session which is August 1983 to August 1984 and therefore when this order in April 1984 was passed the session was still in the offing and if the petitioner was granted admission there was no question of consideration of merit for the year 1984
It is also plain that the seat remained vacant as Dr Smt
Urmilla Shukla had been admitted in the MS Course   Incidentally the High Court was not impressed with the submission made on behalf of the Government that there was no declaration that the seat in the Diploma course had fallen vacant and therefore there was no question of giving admission to the petitioner observing that formal declaration of vacancy was too abstract a concept to deprive a candidate admission to the PG Course or Diploma course to which he is entitled merely on the ground that the vacancy pertained to the academic year which had gone by or that no additional seat in the new year could be created without sanction of the Medical Council of India
In coming to the conclusion that it did the High Court mainly relied on certain observation made by this Court in Punjab Engineering College vs Sanjay Gulati  Ors   and in particular to the following observations Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified
The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made
 We need not enter into this controversy
What is of significance is that in Rekha Saxena s case the seat occupied by Dr Urmilla Shukla in the Diploma course in Obstetrics  Gynaecology was kept vacant and therefore there was no legal impediment for the High Court to have issued a direction for the admission of Dr Rekha Saxena
PG NO 294 In Sunil Gajendragadkar s case the facts were more or less these
One Dr Laxmi Jain did not join the PG course in MD in General Medicine for the academic year 1983 84 and the College Council on December 22 1984 decided to cancel her admission wef
August 1 1984
But the vacancy caused thereby was not notified or advertised
The High Court relying on Rekha Saxena s case repelled the contention of the Government based on r 10 that a seat falling vacant in a particular year can only be filled up in that year and the Sunil Gajendragadkar could not be admitted in the academic session 1983 84 which commenced from August 2 1983
Oza CJ
speaking for himself and Ram Pal Singh J repelled the contention of the Government that the petitioner being a candidate for admission to the PG course in MD in General Medicine for the academic year 1983 84 could not be considered for admission in the year 1984 85 relying on the earlier decision in Rekha Sexena s case based on the observation of this Court in Punjab Engineering College that those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified
The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made and quoted from Rekhu Saxena s case In the present case as it is clear that in the vacancy of Dr Urmilla Shukla the petitioner was entitled to admission immediately in August l983 itself and if the respondents had chosen to keep her away by not considering her prayer it could not be contended that now it is too late for her to be admitted
 The learned Chief Justice largely relied on the concept of justice and fairness
He adverted to the fact that the College Council took a decision on December 22 1984 creating a vacancy wef August 1 1984 ie commencement of the next academic session
Although Dr Laxmi Jain did not join the PG course in MD in General Medicine in August 1983 her seat was in fact vacant but due to apathy and lethargy of the authorities no steps were taken to fill up the seat in that year in terms of r 10
On the language of r 10 we find it difficult to sustain the action of the authorities in making the seat available from August 1 1984 ie commencement of the next academic year or the view expressed by the High Court
In the appeal preferred by Dr Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava it is conceded by learned counsel appearing for the State Government that there is no provision which empowered the PG NO 295 State Government to transfer a seat in the PG course in MDMS reserved for a medical college to another medical college
It must therefore follow that the High Court was obviously wrong in holding that the seat occupied by Smt
Dhurupkar had been transferred with her when the same was in fact available
On the construction that we place on r 10 of the Rules the appellants are not entitled to any relief
Obviously the seat that became vacant in the academic year 1986 87 cannot now filed in terms of r 10
We wish to impress upon the State Government of Madhya Pradesh the desirability of taking immediate steps under r 10 of the Rules to fill up the vacancy in the PG course in MDMS or the diploma course of studies in a particular discipline the moment the seat in a medical college in that discipline is available in a medical college in any particular academic year
The State Government should ensure that the authorities charged with the duty of granting admission to students under r 10 of the Rules must act with due promptitude and should not by their lethargy or inaction deprive an otherwise meritorious candidate admission to such a higher course of studies to which he was otherwise entitled
Perhaps the solution lies in making a suitable provision in the Rules providing for a reasonable period say fifteen days within which the authorities ought to exercise their powers under r 10 of the Rules failing which the seat available would be deemed to have been filled by the candidate placed first in the waiting list strictly according to merit
In the result the appeals must fail and are dismissed
There shall be no order as to costs
RSS Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Respondent No 1 imported consignments of wool material and claimed that the imported goods were wool waste and hence not liable to customs duty
The goods were examined by an Expert Committee who appalled that the goods were other than wool waste
Based on the Committee s opinion the Additional Collector or Customs after notice examined the whole case charged the respondent with the violation of the Import Control Regulations and held that the goods were not wool waste but processed woollen products other than wool topsraw wool
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the respondent s appeal
Dismissing the appeal it was HELD 1 When no statutory definition is provided in respect of an item in the or the Central Excises Act
the trade understanding meaning thereby the understanding in the opinion of those who deal with the goods in question is the safest guide
374B Union of India vs Delhi Cloth  General Mills I963 Supp 1 SCR 586 South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Union of India   Dunlop India Ltd vs Union of India   In re Colgate Palmolive India Pvt Ltd l979 ELT 567 Commissioner of sales tax UP vs SN Bros Kanpur  and His Majesty The King vs Planters Nut and Chocolate Co Ltd 1951 CLR Ex 122 referred to
PG NO 370 PG NO 371 2 The expression wool waste is not defined in the relevant Act or in the notification
This expression is not an expression of article It may be understood as in not of financial measures where the expressions are not defined not in a technical or on any preconceived basis but on the basis of trade understanding of those who deal with those goods
376D E 3 Whether a particular item and the particular goods in this case are wool wastes or not is primarily and essentially a question of fact The decision on such a question of fact must be arrived at without ignoring the material and relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles
Judge by these yardsticks the finding of the Tribunal in this case is unassailable
376F 4 If a fact finding authority comes to a conclusion within the parameters honestly and bona fide the fact that another authority be it the Supreme Court or the High Court may have a different perspective of that question is no ground to interfere with that finding in an appeal from such a finding under Section l30E of the Act though in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment the amplitude of appeal is unlimited
But because the jurisdiction is unlimited there is inherent limitation imposed in such appeals
376G H 377B