Judgment · High Court

By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi a, the petitioner has sought for setting aside and quashing the communication, d ated 20-09-2011, issued by the respondent No. 2, namely, Controller of Examinati ons, Gauhati University, whereby the respondent No. 2 has informed the petitione r that since the petitioner has availed four chances for clearing his intermedia te examination of LL.B. course, conducted by the respondent University, he canno t be allowed any further opportunity to appear and clear the intermediate examin ation. Aggrieved by the impugned communication, dated 20-09-2011, has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropri ate order(s) contending that since the outer limit for the purpose of completion of LL.B. course is six years, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to avai l another chance to clear his intermediate examination.

Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. LP Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that a combined reading of Regulations 14 and 15 of the new Regulations and Syllabus f or LL.B. Course, 2000, shows that while the outer limit for completion of LL.B. course is six years, no candidate would receive more than four chances in two of the three LL.B. examinations (i.e., Preliminary, Intermediate or Final in which this is required). The notification, dated 27-09-2007, issued by the respondent University provides that one special chance (4th) each will be given to the can didates to any of the two of the three LL.B. examinations (i.e., Preliminary, In termediate or Final in which this is required) under the Regulation mentioned ab ove provided that a candidate must complete his/her LL.B. degree within six year s from the date of his/her first due examination in LL.B. preliminary.

In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, appeared in LL.B. i ntermediate examination, held in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The petitio ner has, thus, not only received, but also availed four chances to pass his inte rmediate examination. The respondent University was, therefore, acted within the scope of its power in not allowing the petitioner to avail any further chance t o clear his intermediate examination. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the present writ petition is wholly without merit and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.