Summarize the following court judgment. APPEAL NOS. 2107 1 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1992 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos.13587	 13588	 13926 of 1991 and L.P.A. No. II 8 of 1992. Dipankar Prasad Gupta	 Solicitor General	 N.N. Goswami and H.K. Puri for the Appellants. Ranjit Kumar	 Deepak Sibal	 Ms. Binu Tamta and Tarun Aggarwal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN	 J. Leave granted. All these appeals raise the identical issue as to the interpretation of the Regulations relating to Diploma in Homeopathic Course. Hence	 they are dealt with under one and the same judgment. We will refer to the facts of C.W.P. No. 13587/91 which will be enough for appreciating the issues involved. The respondents joints the Homeopathic Medical College	 Chandigarh in the year 1987 to secure a diploma in Homeopathic 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 Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations	 1983 (hereinafter called the 'Regulations '). These Regulations have been framed by the Central Council of Homeopathy under Section 20 of the Homeopathy 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 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 10deals with 3rd D.H.M.S examination	 11/2years subsequent to the passing of the second D.H.M.S. examination. The respondents appeared in the first year D.H.M.S. annual examination in 312 June	 1988. Since	 they did not get required percentage of pass marks 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 437510/1990	 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. 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 Homeopathic 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 has not been passed in accordance with the scheme prescribed under Regulations 8 & 9. It was under these circumstances	 the writ petitions came to be preferred before the High Court of Punjab & 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. 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 vs Punjabi University & Ors. which in turn has followed Single Judge decision reported in Harinder Kaur Chandok (Minor) vs The Punjab School Education Board through its Secretory It is the correctness of this judgment	 which has been questioned in all these appeals. 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 Homeopathy shall be spread over a period of four years. Those four years include six months compulsory internship after the passing of the final year diploma examination. When we look at Regulations 8 to 10	 three concepts emerge from them: 313 i) Subjects; ii) Time; ii) Marks. The duration of the examination is	 first year: 12 months	 Second Year: 12 months; and third year: 18 months. Regulation 8 states that a candidate may be admitted to the first D.H.M.S. examination. Similarly	 Regulation 9 also states that a candidate shall be admitted to the second D.H.M.S. examination. Identical language is used under Regulation 10 for Third D.H.M.S. examination. The submission of the learned Solicitor General is	 admission to these examinations is entirely different from 'admission to a course '. With reference to admission to each of the examination	 First	 Second and Third year	 the respective Regulations 8	9 & 10 prescribe the eligibility. Unless and until	 that eligibility is possessed	 admission to an examination is impossible. The High Court has taken a view that since the duration of the Course is four years	 this Regulation must be so construed as to fit in within those four years. This is wrong. Regulation 11 talks of re admission to an examination. That Regulation has nothing to do with the eligibility prescribed under Regulation 8 to 10. In other words	 Regulation 11 cannot control the operation of these Regulations. Regulation 11 (iv) talks of supplementary examination. In that supplementary examination	 it is open to a candidate to pass in a subject or subjects in which he has failed. When he so passes	 Clause (v) of that Regulation states that he shall be declared to have passed at the examination as a whole. Even thereafter	 if he fails in the subject or subjects at the supplementary examination and he has to appear in the examination in the failed subject or subjects at the next annual examination	 Clause (vi) prescribes: i) Production of a certification; ii) In addition	 if he had put a necessary attendance	 a further course of study in the subject or subjects in which he had failed	 the minimum number of chances as per this clause are only four. If he fails to complete the subjects within these four chances	 he will have to prosecute a further course of study in all the subjects of all parts for one year	 in other words	 he has to start the course afresh and appear for examination in all the 314 subjects. Thus	 it will be clear that all these Regulations talk of re admission to an examination in Order to enable the failed Candidate to undergo supplementary and subsequent examinations. On completion of subject in any one of those examinations within the four chances	 he is declared to have passed the whole examination. On this count	 it is incorrect to hold that passing in the supplementary examination relates back to the original examination. A careful reading of Regulation 9 requires the satisfaction of the following conditions for appearing in the Second Year D.H.M.S. examination: i) The candidate had passed the First D.H.M.S. examination at the end of one year previously. This means	 there must be a gap of one year between the passing of First year examination and appearing in the Second year examination; ii) Subsequent to the passing of the examination	 must have attended the courses of instruction for a period of at least one year. Therefore	 a candidate who fails in the first year examination in a subject or subjects	 if he passes any supplementary examination cannot take the Second year examination at the next academic year. This is because	 one year duration had not elapsed between the passing of First year examination in the supplementary examination and taking the Second year examination. Worse is a case where a candidate passes the First Year examination at the third or fourth attempt. The High Court has gone wrong in its construction on Regulation 11 that if a candidate passes a supplementary examination	 the insistence of one year would require the candidate to wait for one more year. Therefore	 he would inevitably have to study for the next year course from the next academic session. No doubt	 the candidate who passes the supplementary examination will have to sit idle till the next academic session. That is his own making. On that score	 the attempted harmonious construction by the High Court cannot be supported. The learned Solicitor General finally submits that none of the Regulations indicate 'a carry forward scheme ' of the subjects. On the contrary	 it is a case of detention every year. Accordingly	 he submits that the Civil Appeals deserve to be allowed. Mr. Ranjit Kumar	 learned counsel in opposition to this	 would urge that the interpretation placed by the High court on Regulations 8 to 10 is collect. Otherwise	 no useful purpose would be served by conducting a supplementary examination. Equally	 four chances afforded to the candidate could be rendered nugatory if the interpretation as stated by the learned solicitor General is accepted. 315 Regulation 11 has to be read along with Regulations 8 to 10. It is not correct to argue that Regulation 11 has nothing to do with admission to an examination. As a matter of fact	 declaration of result of supplementary examination of First D.H.M.S. examination was made on 31.10.1989. The next annual examination was held in January	 1990 within 2 1/2 months. The respondents passed the course of First and Second D.H.M.S. examinations. The result of Second Year D.H.M.S. supplementary examination was declared in January	 1991. In view of such an inordinate delay in the conduct of examinations	 the appellant cannot contend that one year period must elapse between First and Second D.H.M.S. examinations and that the Regulations should have been strictly obeyed. The Regulations do not say that after First D.H.M.S. examination	 a student cannot study for Second D.H.M.S. course and sit for examination provisionally. The declaration of result for the Second D.H.M.S. course takes place only after he had cleared the First D.H.M.S examination. As rightly held by the High Court	 the word 'supplementary '. denotes supplementing to or in continuation of the annual examination. Where 	 therefore	 provisional admission is given for the Second Year D.H.M.S	 course	 the failure to complete he First D.H.M.S. examination should not be put against the respondent. If the Regulations are so literally interpreted	 that will lead to absurdity. It will run counter to the object of providing a supplementary examination. This interpretion is holding the field for a long time. This was the reason why in Jaininder Mohan and Others vs The council of Homeopathic System of Medicine.Punjab (1992) 1 I.L.R. Punjab 159	 the court took a view that passing in the supplementary examination will relate back to the date of annual examination. Otherwise	 as rightly pointed out by the High Court	 anamolous results would follow. In so far as the respondents have completed the examination	 equities must weigh in their favour as laid down by this Court in A. Sudha vs University	 of Mysore and another ; 	 Chandigarh Administration & Ors.v Manpreet Singh & Ors. ; 	 Shirish Govind Prabhudesai vs State of Maharashtra The learned counsel also relies on Orissa Homeopathic Regulations and contends that carry forward is permitted in similar Homeopathic Regulations. In order to appreciate the respective contentions	 we have to analyse the relevant Regulations relating to the Diploma Course in Homeopathy as contained Homeopathy (Diploma course) DHMS Regulations	 1983. These Regulations are statutory in character in so far as they have come to be framed in exercise of powers conferred under Clauses (i) 	 (j) & (k) of Section 33 and sub section (1) of Section 316 20 of Homeopathy Central Council Act. Under Section 20	 the Central Council may prescribe the minimum standards of education in Homeopathy required for granting recognised medical qualifications by Universities	 Boards and Medical Institutions in India. Section 33 speaks of powers to make Regulations. The relevant clauses are (i)	 (j) & (k). They are to the following effect. "(i) The courses and period of study of practical training to be undertaken	 the subjects of examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be obtained	 in any University	 Board or Medical institution for grant of recognised medical qualification; (j)the standards of staff	 equipment	 accommodation	 training and other facilities for education in Homeopathy; (k)The conduct of professional examinations	 qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admissions to such examinations;" Therefore	 the Central council constituted under Section 3 of the Act has power to make Regulations under Section 33 (k) regarding the conditions of admission to the examination. The very object of this Act is to prescribe minimum standards for admission	 duration of course of training	 details of curriculum and syllabus of study and the title of degree or diploma. Since they very from State to State and even from Institute to Institute within a same State	 it had become necessary to constitute a Central Council. The Advisory Committee prescribed a course of four years. Accordingly	 in Regulation 3(i)	 it is provided that a Diploma Course in Homeopathy shall comprise a course of study	 spread over a period of four years. This includes the compulsory internship of six months duration after passing the final Diploma examination The Regulations contain eligibility to admission	 the curriculum	 the syllabus etc.in the various parts. Part VI deals with examination. Regulation 8 talks of First D.H.M.S. examination. It is stated in clause (i) : "A candidate may be admitted to the First D.H.M.S. examination provided that he has regularly attended the following course of instruction	 theoretical and practical for a period of not less than 12 months at a Homeopathy College to the satisfaction of the head of the college". 317 From the above	 it is clear for admission to the First D.H.M.S. examination: i)a student must have regularly attended the courses of instruction	 theoretical and practical; ii) for a period of not less than 12 months; iii) to the satisfaction of the head of the College. As regards the Second D.H.M.S. examination	 Regulation 9 takes care. That states in Clause (i) : "No candidate shall be admitted to the Second D.H.M.S examination unless: a) he has passed First D.H.M.S. examination at the end of one year previously	 and b) he has regularly attended the following courses of instruction both theoretical and practical in the subjects of examination for a period of at least one year subsequent to his passing First D.H.M.S. examination from a recognised Homeopathic College to the satisfaction of the head of the college. " Here again	 eligibility for admission to Second D.H.M.S. examination is based on two conditions: i) A student has passed his First D.H.M.S. examination at the end of one year previously. This means one year must elapse between the passing of the First year examination and taking of Second Year Examination. ii) Subsequent to the passing the First year a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical and practical; (b) for a period of at least one year; (c) to the satisfaction of the head of the College. Thus	 unless and until	 these two conditions are satisfied	 a student is 318 ineligible for admission to the Second D.H.M.S. examination. Clause (iii) states that the Second D.H.M.S. examination shall be held at the end of two years of D.H.M.S. course. The Third D.H.M.S. course is provided for under Regulation 10. That reads as follows: "No candidate shall be admitted to the Third D.H.M.S. examination unless: (a) he has passed the second D.H.M.S. examination at the end of 1 1/2 years previously	 and (b) has regularly attended the following courses of instructions both theoretical and practical in subjects of examination for a period of at least 11/2 years subsequent to his passing the Second D.H.M.S examination in a recognised Homeopathic College to the satisfaction of the head of the College. " Here again	 the conditions for eligibility for admission to Third D.H.m.s examination are: i) After passing the Second D.H.M.S. examination	one and a half years must have elapsed before taking the Third D.H.M.S examination. ii) Subsequent to the passing of the Second D.H.M.S. examination: a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical and practical" b) for a period of 11/2 years; c) to the satisfaction of the college. Thus	 it will be clear that the pattern of the examination is as rightly urged by the learned Solicitor General : 12 months for First D.H.M.S. examination	 12 months for Second D.H.M.S. examination and 18 months for Third D.H.M.S examination. These put together with six months of compulsory internship	 make up the four years prescribed for the Course in Regulation 3. One thing that carefully requires to be noticed is that all the three Regulations 319 8 to 10 speak of admission to an examination	 First	 Second and Third year respectively. This is entirely different from admission to a course we find great force in this submission of the learned Solicitor General. The course of study may consist of four years	 but that has nothing to do with the scheme of examination. Now	 we come to Regulation 11. That requires to be reproduced in full: "(i) Every candidate for admission to an examination shall send to the authority concerned his application in the prescribed form with the examination fee at least 21 days before the date fixed for the commencement of the examination. (ii)As soon as possible after the examination the examining body shall publish a list of successful candidates arranged in the following manner: (a)the names and roll numbers of the first ten candidates in order of merit	 and (b) the roll number of others arranged serially. (iii)Every candidate shall on passing the examination receive a certificate in the form prescribed by the examining body concerned. (iv) A candidate who appears at the examination but fails to pass in a subject or subjects may be admitted to supplementary examination in the subject or subjects of that part of the examination in which he has failed to be held ordinarily after six weeks from the publication of result of the first examination on payment of the prescribed fee along with an application in the prescribed form. (v) If a candidate obtains pass marks in the subject or subjects at the supplementary examination or the subsequent examination	 he shall be declared to have passed at the examination as a whole	 (vi) If such a candidate fails to pass in the subject or subjects at the supplementary examination in the subject or subjects concerned	 he may appear in that subject or subjects at the next annual examination on production of a certification in addition to the certificate required under the regulations	 to the effect that he had attended to the satisfaction of the Principle	a further course of study for a period 320 of next academic year in the subject or subjects in which he had failed	 provided that all the parts of the examination shall be completed within four chances including the supplementary one	 to be counted from the date when the complete examination becomes due for the first time. (vii)If a candidate fails to pass in all the subjects within the prescribed four chances	 he shall be required to prosecute a further course of study in all the subjects of all parts for one year to the satisfaction of the head of the college and appear for examination in all the subjects. Provided that if a student appearing for the Third D.H.M.S. Hom.examination has only one subject to pass at the end or prescribed chances	 he shall be allowed to appear at the next examination in that particular subject and shall complete the examination with this special chance. (viii)All examinations shall be held on such dates	 time and places as the examining body may determine. (ix) The examining body may under exceptional circumstances partially or wholly cancel any examination conducted by it under intimation to the Central Council of Homeopathy and arrange for conducting reexamination in those subjects within a period of thirty days from the date of such cancellation." This Regulation deals with results and readmission to an examination. A close reading of the above brings out the following: In clause (iv) as to what is to happen in the event of a candidate failing to pass in a subject or subjects is spoken to. He may be admitted to the supplementary examination. Such a supplementary examination is to ordinarily take place after six weeks from the publication of result of First Examination. Supposing he passes in that subject or 'subjects in the supplementary examination he is declared to have passed at the examination as a whole. This should obviously be so; because once he completes all the subjects	 he has to necessarily be declared to have passed. Merely on this language	 "declared to have passed at the examination as a whole"	 we are unable to understand as to how the 321 "doctrine of relation back" could ever be invoked. The invocation of such a doctrine leads to strange results. When a candidate completes the subjects only in the supplementary examination	 then alone	 he passes the examination. It is that pass which is declared. If the "doctrine of relation back" is applied	 it would have the effect of deeming to have passed in the annual examination	 held at the end of 12 months	 which on the face of it is untrue. With this	 we pass on to clause (vi) which deals with the stage where the candidate had failed in the First Annual Examination in a subject or subjects and he had not passed in that subject or subjects in the supplementary examination also. The next annual examination arrives. The appearance in that examination is conditioned upon production of two certificates: i)A certificate required under the Regulations to the effect that he had attended to the satisfaction of the Principle; ii)A certificate to the effect that he had undergone a further course of study for a period of next academic year in subject of subjects in which he had failed. Whatever it is	 a candidate has to complete all the subjects within four chances. Should he fail to do so	 he will have to undergo the course in all subjects for one yea	 unless of course	 he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to Clause (vii). Nowhere do	 we find in Regulation 11 system of carry forward '. On the contrary	 it is detention every year. The High Court was moved by the fact that if a candidate were to pass in supplementary examination after passing the examination	 he will have to remain at home till the next annual examination. So	 he is allowed to undergo a course for next academic year provisionally. On this line of reasoning	 clause (iv) & (vi) of Regulation II are sought to be "harmoniously construed '. We are unable to accept this line of reasoning or the so called harmonious construction because it does violence to the language of the Regulation. It clearly violates the mandatory requirements of Regulation 9. It has already been noted as to what those requirements are. To repeat: i) The lapse of one year period between the passing of First D.H.M.S. examination and taking the Second D.H.M.S. examination. ii) Subsequent to the passing of the First D.H.M.S. examination to undergo the course of study for one year. Therefore	 if a candidate passes in the supplementary examination	 the requirement of one year cannot be enforced. Worse still is 322 a case of a student who passes only at the next annual examination. Could he be allowed to take the Second D.H.M.S. examination without even completing the First? Should he by chance pass the Second D.H.M.S. and not complete the First	 since he is still one more chance to take this examination	 what is to happen? The situation is absurd. The same principle should apply to Regulation 10 where the lapse is one and half years. The word 'supplement ' is defined in Oxford Dictionary	 Seventh Edition	 page 1072: "think added to remedy deficiencies; part added to book etc	 with further information	 or to periodical for treatment of particular matter(s) of an angle	(Math.)its deficiency from 180(of.COMPLEMENT); hence Al	 ARY	 (mem) adjs.(supplementay benefit). [ME	f.L. sup (plementum f plere fill; see ment]" Therefore	the adjective 'supplementary ' means and examination to makeup the deficiencies. it stands to reason only when deficiencies are made up	 the whole becomes complete. On this score to say that passing the supplementary examination would relate back to the annual examination will be totally incorrect. What counts is when the whole is made up. From that time of making up one year or one and half years must elapse for second or Third D.H.M.S. examinations as the case Amy be. The stand of the appellants counsel as seen from letter dated 12.12.1989 is as follows: "From: Dr. P.L. Verma	 Secretary	 Central Council of Homeopathy	 10	 Community Centre	 Basant Lok	 Vasant Vihar	 New Delhi 110037. TO The Chairman	 The Council	 Homoeopathic Systems of Medicine	 3027 28	 Sector 22 D	 Chandigarh. 323 Sub:Enforcement of D.H.M.S (Diploma Course) Regulation 1983 w.e.f.1983 84 Academic Sessions students demand for grant of provisional promotion with reappearance in only one subject to the next higher class even beyond supplementary examination even prior to his passing the lower class examination as a whole. With reference to your letter No. CHSM PV 134 /89/1253 dated 29/ 30 November	 1989 on the subject noted above. I am to say that the question of permitting to appear simultaneously for two examinations i.e. lower reappear subjects and complete subjects of the next higher class does not arise as no candidate has to be admitted to the Second D.H.M.S. examination unless he had passed the first D.H.M.S. examination at the end of one year previously and has regularly	 attended the course for one year. Similarly	 no candidate shall be admitted to the Third D.H.M. section examination unless he has passed the second D.H.M.S. examination 1 1/2 years previously and has also attended the course for a period of 1 1/2 years subsequent to his passing of the Second D.H.M.S. Examination. COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHIC SYSTEM OF MEDICINE 3027 28	 Sector 22 D CHANDIGARH (UT) No. CHCH PV 9134/89/AT 198 200 Dated 5.2.90 Copy forwarded to the Principal	 Lord Mahaveera Homeopathic Medical College	 Ludhiana/Abohar/Chandigarh for information and necessary action. This may please be notified for information of all the students under intimation to the undersigned. The above guidelines/directions of the Central Council may please be strictly followed and observed in respect of matters indicated therein. sd/ (R.K. Sharma) Registrar	 No.CHMS/PV/134/89/AI 201 210 Dated 5.2.90. " This stand in our opinion is correct. If a student were to sit idle at home after passing the supplementary 324 examination that is his own making. To avoid such a situation	 the Regulation cannot be construed causing violence to the language. These Regulations are plain enough and are susceptible only to literary interpretation. In 'Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes ' 12th Edition	 it is stated at page 29 as under: "Where the language is plain and admits of but one meaning	 the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. "The decision in this case	 said Lord Morris of Borth y Gest in a revenue case, calls for a full and fair application of particular statutory language to particular facts as found. The desirability or the undesirability of one conclusion as compared with another cannot furnish a guide in reaching a decision." (Shop and Store Developments Ltd. vs I.R.C. (1967) 1 A.C. 472). Where	 by the use of clear and unequivocal language capable of only one meaning	 anything is enacted by the legislature	 it must be enforced however harsh or absurd or contrary to common sense the result may be.(Cartledge vs E. Jopling & Sons	 Ltd.) The interpretation of a statue is not to be collected from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to what is just and expedient: (Gwynne vs Burnell Words are not to be construed	 contrary to their meaning	 as embracing or excluding cases merely because no good reason appears why they should not be embraced or excluded. (Whitehead vs James Stott Ltd. The duty of the court is to expound the law as it stands	 and to "leave the remedy (if one be resolved upon) to others." (Sutters vs Briggs We construe the Regulations as they stand without introducing any element of ambiguity or absurdity. The manner in which the respondents have passed the examination is set out in the following tabulated statement: "C.W.P. No. 13926 of 1991 Miss Kamaljit & eight others of L.M. Homoeopathic Medical College	 Ludhiana. 1st prof.Annual/88 Supp/88 Annual/89 Respondent No. Re appear Re appear Pass 325 1	 Miss Kamaljit in 3 in 2 Contd.d/o Sawam subjects subjects Singh (Admitted in 1987) Resp.2	 Re appear pass Sh.Narinder in 2 Contd Kumar s/o subjects Satya Pal Goyal (Admitted in 1987)  Resp.No. 3 Shri Re appear pass Contd.Mohd Ramzan in 3 Thind s/o SH. subjects Moh. Yousaf (Admitted in 1987) Resp No.4 Shri Re appears Re appears pass " Naresh Kumar in 3 subjects in 2 subjects Resp.No.5 Shri Re appear Re appear pass " Jaininder Mohan in 2 in 1 s/o Shri Sham Lal subjects subject (Admitted in 1987) Resp.No. 6 Shri Re appear Re appear pass " Kulbir Singh s/o in 3 in 2 Sh. Tattan Singh subjects subjects (Admitted in 1987) Res.No. 7 Re appear pass " Narinder Singh in1 s/o Sh.Sant subject Singh (Admitted in 1987) Res. No. 8 Inderjit Mehta d/o Anant Ram Mehta (Admitted in 1987) Resp.No. 9 Fail Re appear pass Tejvinder Singh	 in1 s/o Jaswant Singh (Admitted in 1987) 326 Continued Part IInd Prof. (CWP No. 481of 1991) 3rd Prof. (CWP No: 13926/91) Suppl./89 Annual/90 Suppl/91 Re appear Re appear Re appear Allowed to appear in 3 in 3 in1 as per court subjects subjects subject order dt.6.9.91 by the Principal of L. Homoeopathic Medical College. Re appear Re appear pass As per court in 3 in1 order dt.6.9.91 subjects subject (without court order) Re appear Re appear pass Not appeared in 4 in 1 subjects subject Re appear Re appear pass As per court in 3 in1 orderdt 6.9.91 Fail Re appear pass As per court in 2 order subjects dt.6.9.91 Re appear Re appear pass As per court in 1 pass Order subject dt.6.9.91 Re appear Re appear pass Allowed to in 2 in 2 appear as subjects subjects per Court order dt.6.9.91" Mr. Ranjit Kumar pleads before us that equities must weigh in favour of students. With reference to that plea	 we hold that he students who had completed the whole course	 attended all the courses of study for the three sessions of 12 months	 12 months and 18 months respectively and had passed all the examinations in all the subjects	 though not in the sequential order required by the 327 regulations	 it appears to us that the submission of the counsel for the respondents that they being required to go through the courses all over again and take the examinations after attending the courses afresh	 might lead to hardship and might require consideration. In the words of Anne Sophie Swetchine: "The world has no sympathy with any but positive griefs; it will pity you for what you lose	 but never for what you lack. We think that their cases may perhaps have to be examined from the point of these equities by the Council of Homeopathic System of Medicines. The candidates who	 as on today	 have attended all the courses and have passed all the examinations might make an appropriate representation to the Council of Homeopathic System of Medicines (the appellant) to consider their cases. The representation shall be filed within a period of four weeks from today. The Council of Homeopathic System of Medicines (the appellant) will take appropriate decision within one month thereafter. The Council in doing so shall bear in mind all the relevant circumstances	 including	 perhaps the spirit of the corresponding regulations under the Bihar Act	 in which such sequential purpose is not insisted upon.

The respondents appeared in the first year D.H.MS (Diploma in Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery) annual examination in june	1988.They had to re appear as they did not get the required percentage of pass marks in two or more subjects. They were permitted to join the second year class after June	 1988. Under the interim orders of the High Court	 they appeared in the second year annual examination. Simultaneously	 the respondents appeared in the first year D.H.MS. examination and cleared all the papers. After re appearing in one or more subjects in the second year Supplementary examination in June	 1990	 they were declared passed in the 2nd year D.H.M.S. examination. The respondents joined the third year D.H.M.S. course and completed the course of study. When their examination forms were forwarded to the appellant Council	 they declined to permit the respondents to appear in the 3rd year D.H.M.S. annual examination	 because they did not complete one year course of study between passing the first D.H.M.S. examination and appearing in the second year course. The respondents preferred a writ petition before the High Court to direct the appellants to permit them to appear in the third year DHMS examination	 commencing from 3.9.1991. Following the view taken in the decision of the Court in C.W.P. No 2307/ 88. Gurinder pal Singh vs Punjabi University & Ors.	 which was followed in Harinder Kaur Chandok (Minor) v The Punjab School	 Education Board through its Secretary	 	 the High court allowed the writ petition of the respondents. Against that order of the High Court	 the appeal (C.A.No. 2107/93) was filed by special leave. The appellants submitted that the High Court was wrong in its construction on regulation 11 of the Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations	 1983; that if a candidate passed on supplementary examination	 he would have to wait till the next academic session; that none of the Regulations indicated carry forward scheme of the subjects	 but on the contrary	it was a case of detention every year. The respondents urged that the interpretation placed by the High Courts on Regulations 8 to 10 was correct; that four chances afforded to the 308 candidate could be rendered nugatory	 if the interpretation as stated by the appellants was accepted; that the Regulations did not say that after First D.H.M.S. examination	 a student could not study for Second D.H.M.S. course and sit for examination provisionally; that the declaration of result for the Second D.H.M.S. course took place only after a student cleared the First D.H.M.S. examination; that if the Regulations were literally interpreted	 that would lead to absurdity and it would run counter to the object of providing a supplementary examination. As the other appeals (C.A.Nos. 2108 10/93) contained identical issue	 all the appeals were heard and decided together. Allowing	 the appeals	 this Court	 HELD:1.1. The Regulations 8 10 of the Homeopathy (Diploma Course) DHMS Regulations	 1983 are plain enough and are susceptible only to literary interpretation. Maxwell:Interpretation of Statutes	 12th Edition	 Page 29	 referred to. 1.2.For admission to the First D.H.M.S. examination: i)a student must have regularly attended the courses of instruction	 theoretical and practical; ii) for a period of not less than 12 months; iii) to the satisfaction of the head of the College. (317 B) 1.3. Eligibility for admission to Second D.H.M.S. examination is based on two conditions: i) A student has passed his First D.H.M.S. examination at the end of one year previously. This means one year must elapse between the passing of the First year examination and taking of Second Year Examination. ii) Subsequent to the passing the First year 309 a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical and practical; b) for a period of at least one year; c) to the satisfaction of the head of the College. (317 F G) Thus	 unless and until	 these two conditions are satisfied	 a student is ineligible for admission to the Second D.H.M.S. examination. (317 H	 318 A) 1.4 The conditions for eligibility for admission to Third D.H.M.S examination are: i) After passing the Second D.H.M.S examination	 one and a half years must have elapsed before taking the Third D.H.M.S. examination. ii) Subsequent to the passing of the Second D.H.M.S. examination: a) he must have regularly attended the courses both theoretical an practical; b) for a period of 11/2 years; c) to the satisfaction of the college. (318 F G) 1.5. Mandatory requirements of Regulation 9 are; i) The lapse of one year period between the passing of First D.H.M.S. examination and taking the Second D.H.M.S. examination. ii) Subsequent to the passing of the First D.H.M.S. examination to undergo the course of study for one year. (321 G) 1.6. Therefore	 if a candidate passes in the supplementary examination	 the requirement of one year cannot be enforced. Worse still is a case of a student who passes only at the next annual examination. Could he he allowed to take the Second D.H.M.S. examination without even completing the First? Should he by chance pass the Second D.H.M.S. and not complete the First	 since he has still one more chance to take this examination	 what is to happen? 310 The situation is absurd. The same principle should apply to Regulation 10 where the lapse is one and half years. (321 H	 322 A) 1.7.The pattern of the examination is: 12 months for First D.H.M.S. examination	 12 months for Second D.H.M.S. examination and 18 months for Third D.H.M.S examination. These put together with six months of compulsory internship	 make up the four years prescribed for the Course in Regulation 3. (318 G) 1.8.When a candidate completes the subjects only in the supplementary examination	 then alone	 he passes the examination. It is that pass which is declared. If the "doctrine of relation back" is applied	 it would have the effect of deeming to have passed in the annual examination	 held at the end of 12 months	 which on the face of it	 is untrue. (321 A) 1.9.Whatever it is	 a candidate has to complete all the subjects within four chances. Should he fail to do so	 he will have to undergo the course in all subjects for one year unless of course	 he gets the exemption as stated in proviso to Clause (vii). In Regulation 11 there is no 'system of carry forward '. On the contrary	 it is detention every year. Harmonious construction violates the mandatory requirements of Regulation 9. (321 E F) 1.10.If a student were to sit idle at home after passing the supplementary examination that is his own making. To avoid such a situation	 the Regulation cannot be construed causing violence to the language. (323 H	 324 A) 1.11.The candidates who	 as on the day of Judgment of these appeals	 have attended all the courses and have passed all the examinations might make an appropriate representation to the Council of Homeopathic System of Medicines (The appellant) to consider their cases. The representation shall be filed within a period of four weeks. The Council of Homiopathic System of Medicines (the appellant) will take appropriate decision. (327 C) 2. The adjective 'supplementary ' means an examination to make up the deficiencies. Thus	 it stands to reason only when deficiencies are made up	 the whole becomes complete. (322 D) Oxford Dictionary	 Seventh Edition	 page 1072	 referred to. (322 B)