2018 (12) TMI 794 - HC - Indian Laws

Exemption sought in Paper 18 of Group IV of the final CMA Examination - appellant has not been able to prove that he had sought any exemption in Paper 18 for the June, 2014 as contended by him at the time of admission of this appeal - Held that - The form shown to us at Page 364 is an Online Form and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, no pen or pencil could have been used and therefore, the figure 18 appearing in the said document is of no help to the appellant. We do not want to concern ourselves with the issue as to how the said figure is appearing in the hard copy filed in the petition. Moreover, a reading of the writ petition also shows that there is no averment whatsoever that any such exemption was sought prior to the Examination through an Online Form - this Court rejects the contention of the appellant that any exemption in Paper 18 was sought by the appellant. Having not acted with due diligence, appellant cannot be given the benefit of the exemption and can neither be permitted to appear in the Examination of the final court at this stage. In any case, even assuming that he had applied for exemption, he was not entitled having exhausted three attempts under Regulations of 2012 - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption from appearing in the Business Valuation Paper in the Cost and Management Accountants Examination (CMA) conducted in June 2014.
2. Application of the amended Cost and Works Accountants Regulations, 1959.
3. Communication of exemption status to the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of exemption from appearing in the Business Valuation Paper in the Cost and Management Accountants Examination (CMA) conducted in June 2014:
The appellant challenged the decision of the respondents denying him exemption from appearing in the Business Valuation Paper (Paper 18) in the final CMA Examination conducted in June 2014. The appellant had previously secured more than 60% in Paper 18, which initially granted him an exemption under the pre-amended Regulation 41(2) of the Cost and Works Accountants Regulations, 1959. However, the amendment to Regulation 41(2) limited the exemption to three consecutive terms. The appellant had already utilized the exemption for the terms December 2012, June 2013, and December 2013. The court upheld the respondents' decision, noting that the appellant had exhausted his three chances of exemption by December 2013.

2. Application of the amended Cost and Works Accountants Regulations, 1959:
The amendment to Regulation 41(2) came into effect via a Notification dated 25.05.2012, restricting the exemption benefit to three consecutive terms. The appellant argued that the amendment should apply prospectively. However, the court found that the amendment was correctly applied, as the appellant was granted exemptions for the terms specified under the amended regulation. The court also noted that the appellant did not challenge the respondents' power to amend the regulations and that the amendment was not applied retrospectively.

3. Communication of exemption status to the appellant:
The appellant contended that he had applied for the exemption for the June 2014 examination but did not receive any communication from the Institute, leading him to believe he was exempted. The court examined the appellant's Online Application Form, which indicated an exemption request for Paper 18. However, the respondents argued that the form should not have any handwritten entries, and there was no official request for exemption. The court agreed with the respondents, noting that the appellant failed to prove that he had sought exemption for the June 2014 examination. The court also found that the appellant should have been aware of the amended regulations and acted with due diligence.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the learned Single Judge's judgment. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and concluded that the appellant was not entitled to further exemption under the amended regulations. The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and adherence to the updated examination rules and instructions. The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.