High Court Directs ICAI To Grant Membership To CA Student Who Pursued Multiple Cours

The Karnataka High Court in the matter of NIKKITHA K.J. Vs. UNION OF INDIA directs ICAI to grant membership to CA student who pursued multiple courses.

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order/ communication dated 1-05-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent declining to accede to the request of the petitioner for membership to practice as a Chartered Accountant and has sought a consequential direction to register the petitioner as a Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

FACTS OF CASE:

The petitioner is a student. In the month of May 2017, she joins B.Com degree at ASC Evening Degree College. Simultaneously, she enrolled herself for a course in CMA Foundation. After joining B.Com degree course, the petitioner completes CMA Foundation course and intermediate course as well in the month of June, 2018 and had pursued her CS-Executive Course which also gets completed in June 2018. Therefore, the petitioner had enrolled herself to several courses and completed all of them except B.Com. degree course which she is pursuing.

On 27-08-2018, the petitioner joins Chartered Accountant Articleship training. She then seeks permission to continue her B.Com. degree course by submitting necessary application in Form No.112 under the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (‘the Regulations’ for short) for grant of permission to pursue additional courses. The permission was granted. The petitioner completes her B.Com degree in September, 2020. After completion of B.Com. degree, she seeks permission to write CMA final exam and the respondent permitted additional course also to be taken. The petitioner in December, 2020 completes her CMA final exam as well. After its completion, the petitioner on 30-03-2021 seeks permission to pursue additional course – CS professional again seeking permission by submitting application in Form No.112. Permission is granted. On completion of all the courses and Articleship, the petitioner then files application seeking enrollment as Member of the 2nd respondent to become a Chartered Accountant. Certain clarifications were sought from the hands of the petitioner as to how she pursued multiple courses by submitting Form No.112 and later it was informed that the decision is that the petitioner would not be permitted to enroll as a Chartered Accountant for two years and would be imposed a fine of Rs.10,000 for having pursued multiple courses on every occasion which the 2nd respondent says it was without permission. Correspondences between the petitioner and the respondents galore, clarifications are sought and replies were given by the petitioner. On 01-05-2023, the membership is categorically denied to the petitioner. It is challenging that action the student is before this Court in the subject petition.

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner joins B.Com degree course in May 2017 in an evening College. Simultaneously, the petitioner had enrolled in several courses, according to her counsel, to study. She completes CMA foundation course; CMA intermediate course and CS–Executive course before the petitioner joins Chartered Articleship training which she joins on 27-08-2018. Before joining Articleship training, since she had already enrolled to B.Com degree course, she sought permission by submitting Form 112 in terms of Regulations 65 and 78 of the Regulations. The petitioner was granted permission. This is for the first time the petitioner seeks permission under Form 112 and it is granted to the petitioner to pursue additional course.

The permission was sought on 11.05.2019 by the petitioner and was granted by the following communication:

“Dear,

This refers to Form 112 of the Student Registration No SRO0609486, articled assistant received in our office on 11/05/2019. The council is pleased to permit to attend/pursue one additional course i.e. outside the normal working hours of the office provided his/her attendance does not in anyway interfere with his/her training as an Article Assistant.

Regards,
ICAI”

The petitioner then writes to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to pursue additional course – CMA final by submitting an application on 24-10-2020. This is also permitted by the following communication:

“Dear NIKKITHA K J,

This refers to Form 112 of the Student Registration No SRO0609486, articled assistant received in our office on 24/10/2020. The council is pleased to permit NIKKITHA K J to attend/pursue one additional course i.e. outside the normal working hours of the office provided his/her attendance does not in anyway interfere with his/her training as an Article Assistant.

Regards,
ICAI”

The petitioner again submits form No.112 seeking permission to pursue additional course i.e., CS-Professional on 30-09-2021.

The petitioner then submits necessary application to become a Member of the Indian Institute of Chartered Accountants under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 by submitting necessary application on 10-02-2023. Here begins the problem. On 15-02-2023, a clarification is sought from the hands of the petitioner with regard to additional courses that the petitioner had pursued during the period when she was doing her Articleship. The petitioner immediately replies. What comes about is the decision that the petitioner should wait for two more years to get membership and imposition of fine of Rs.10,000 all for the reason that the petitioner has pursued multiple courses.

What would unmistakably emerge from the aforequoted communications and the act of the student is that on every occasion, the student has diligently sought permission from the 2nd respondent to pursue the course and on every occasion, the student has been permitted to pursue the course. Now, when time came to register her as a Member of the Council to practice as a Chartered Accountant, the 2nd respondent wants to put the clock back by four years tinkering with the permissions that are already granted from time to time. It would have been an altogether different circumstance, if the student was not diligent in seeking permissions from time to time to pursue extra courses. It is not the allegation that forms the issue in the lis. The petitioner/student has been diligent in securing permissions. The mighty respondent now wants to jeopardize the career of a student on the score that it had not properly accorded permission or permission was not properly sought by the student. This act of the 2nd respondent sans countenance.

This Court is dealing with the fervent cry of the student who sought to pursue multiple courses to develop such acumen and she has completed all those courses with the permission of the 2nd respondent. A student will not know the implications of law. A student knows only to study and ponder over the study material. She has studied and completed the courses. It is rather surprising that the 2nd respondent wants to stifle the career of a student, who has pursued multiple courses and gained such acumen to practice as a Chartered Accountant. It would be helpful to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the Society, if a student has extra acumen, than the chartered accountantship alone. Such acts of the 2nd respondent against a student who has only studied and done nothing else, that too after seeking permission would not behove the 2nd respondent to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Whatever defence that the council for the 2nd respondent seeks to project, by invoking Regulation 65 of the Regulations by contending that the permission that was granted was for final courses and not foundation courses that precedes those final courses is a contention skating on thin ice, as the foundation courses gets subsumed in the final courses, and permission is granted for pursuing final courses. Therefore, this Court repels those submissions of the learned counsel for 2nd respondent, for the praedictus reasons, I deem it appropriate to bend the arc of justice for a student and direct grant of Membership of the petitioner to the Institute without brooking any further delay.

ORDER:

The petition is allowed. The communication/order dated 01-05-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent stands quashed.

A mandamus issues to the 2nd respondent to consider addressing of the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and enrolling her as a Member of the Institute bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

For Official Judgment Download PDF Given Below: