High Court · 2015

Further, individual applications of such candidates must be submitted through th e concerned Principals by giving individual undertaking that the candidates shal l not ask for any more chances in future (cid:29) It is the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the University hav [7] ing held the 1st examination for the preliminary LL.B course students of 2003-30 04 only in the year 2005, the 6 year period allowed as per the Regulation 15 of the New Regulation and Syllabus for LL.B course read with the notification dated 27.09.2007 would be till 2011. As such, the respondents’ decision in not allowi ng her to participate in the examination for clearing her remaining back papers was illegal and unjustified. He has also relied upon the following case laws to support his case that the petitioner is within her right to appear in the Januar y, 2011 examinations; [1] paragraphs 8, 9, 13 and 14 of the case, namely, Chow P inkkham Munglang Vrs. Gauhati University and Ors., reported in 2007 (4) GLT 878, [2] paragraphs 5 to 8 of the case, namely, Kaberi Borah Vrs. Gauhati University and Ors., reported in 2009 (5) GLT 679 and [3] paragraphs 8 and 9 of the case, namely, Tez Uddin Laskar Vrs. Gauhati University and Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLT 654. [8] Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other h and contends that the petitioner cannot be allowed to give the examination in th e year 2011, inasmuch as, the 6 year period given as per Regulation 15 of the Ne w Regulation and Syllabus for LL.B course and the notification dated 27.09.2007 comes to an end in the year 2009. [9] avit-in-opposition filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as follows:- (cid:28)10. That the petitioner appeared in LL.B final examination, 2006 and her second for appearing LL.B final examination was in 2007, third chance in 2008 and four th chance was in 2009. As the petitioner could not clear her LL.B final examinat ion within 4th chances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any more chance to The respondents’ counsel has also submitted in paragraph 10 of the affid appear in the LL.B final examination. (cid:29) [10] Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgments of this Court passed in the case of [1] Nijara Devi Baruah Vrs. Gauha ti University and Ors., reported in 2009 (5) GLT 231 paragraph 10, [2] Pranjal P rasad Baruah Vrs. Vrs. Gauhati University and Ors., reported in 2009 (5) GLT 491 paragraphs 7 and 11 and [3] Monmi Sarma Vrs. Gauhati University and Anr., repor ted in (2009) 5 GLR 144 paragraphs 5 and 7. [11] It is also noticed that this Court vide order dated 22.12.2010 had allow ed the petitioner to sit in the examination for the fourth paper (Code of Civil Procedure) of the final year course to be held on 04.01.2011 and directed the re spondents not to declare the result. [12] Thus, the question that falls for adjudication in this case is whether t he Regulation 15 of the New Regulation and Syllabus for LL.B course, prohibits t he petitioner from giving her examination for clearing her back papers in the 20 10 examination year, which was to be held in January, 2011. The respondents’ cou nsel has submitted that the petitioner should have cleared her LL.B papers withi n 6 years which would end in the year 2009. He also stated that as the petitione r had already availed her fourth chance for clearing the back papers, the provis o to Regulation 15 and the notification dated 27.09.2007 debars the petitioner f rom giving examinations for the 5th time. [13] low for ready reference:- (cid:28)Regulation 14: A candidate who fails to pass or fails to appear in the first du e examination shall have to pass in that examination within the period of holdin g the next 3 consecutive examinations. Regulation 15: A candidate shall be required to clear his/her LL.B degree within 6 years from the date of his/her first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary, pr ovided that a student shall be allowed to appear in not more than three chances in each part the LL.B Examinations. By Regulation 14 as noted above, a candidate who fails to pass or fails to appea r in the first due examination is required to pass in the said examination withi n a period of holding of the next 3 consecutive examinations. Similarly under Re Gauhati University’s New Regulation 14 and Regulation 15 is extracted be gulation 15, a candidate is required to clear the LL.B. Degree within 6 years fr om the date of first due Preliminary LL.B Examination. It is provided further un der Regulation 15 that maximum 3 chances are available to each student to clear each part of the LL.B Examination. The LL.B students are however granted a special chance (4th chance) by the Gauha ti University Notification dated 27.09.2007, to clear any 2 of the 3 LL.B Examin ations (i.e. Preliminary, Intermediate or Final) and because of the notification 29.09.2007 a student can avail of a special 4th chance, to clear 2 of the 3 LL. B Examinations, beyond the 3 chances permissible under Regulation 15. (cid:29) [14] Mr. C Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a s the petitioner had been enrolled for the academic session from June, 2003 to M ay, 2004 and as the exam for the LL.B preliminary course was held in January, 20 05, though it was to be held in December, 2004, the petitioner was required to c lear her LL. B degree within 6 years from the date of her first due examination in LL.B preliminary, the calculation of which would be to the effect that the pe titioner had until the year January, 2011 to clear her LL.B degree examination. Also as the 2010 examinations were to be held in January 2011, the petitioner ha d the right to participate in it. [15] Mr. LP Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the othe r hand has submitted that reading of Regulation 15 requires that 6 years have to be counted from December, 2004 and as such, the petitioner would have to clear her LL.B degree examinations by December, 2009. However, the Gauhati High Court in various judgments, especially in Chow Pinkkham Munglang (supra) as reflected at paragraph 10, as clearly held by the Division Bench of this Court, the outer limit of maximum 6 years provided would be applicable. In the said case, the pet itioner was admitted for the academic year 1998-1999 and in paragraph 10 of the said judgment it has been held that the petitioner could complete his LL.B cours e by the year 2005 by taking the outer limit of maximum of 6 years provided by t he notification 30.09.2002. [16] In the present case, the petitioner’s first due examination having been held only in the year January, 2005, the petitioner will have the outer limit of maximum of 6 years for completing her LL.B degree in the year 2011. Accordingly , as per Regulation 15, the petitioner could participate in the January 2011 exa minations. [17] The second point to be considered in the present case is as to whether t he petitioner had availed all her chances for appearing and passing her final LL .B course subjects within four examinations. The notification dated 27.09.2007 h aving held that the LL.B students will be given one special chance, i.e., the 4t h chance to clear any two of the three LL.B examinations, the question is whethe r the petitioner availed of all her four chances for clearing her LL.B final cou rse subject. Mr. C Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect has [18] submitted that the petitioner was admitted to the LL.B final year course in the academic year June, 2005 to May, 2006. The first exam for the students of the 20 05-2006 final year LL.B students was held in December, 2006. However, the petiti oner did not take part in the said 2006 examination and no reasons have been giv en by her for not taking part in the said examination. [19] Mr. C Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the next examination for the final year LL.B students was held in December, 200 7. In the December, 2007 examination, the petitioner gave her examination for he r intermediate and final year subjects. The petitioner passed her intermediate s ubjects in the December, 2007 examination but did not clear three papers pertain ing to the LL.B final year course. The petitioner’ counsel has submitted that there was another exam to be [20] held in 2008 but was actually held in the January 2009. However, again the petit ioner did not appear in the 2008/January 2009 examination to clear her three bac k papers pertaining to her LL.B final year course. The petitioner thereafter, ap peared in the December, 2009 LL.B examinations and she cleared two out of three back papers. [21] The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner submitted an applic This Court in the case of Nizara Devi Baruah (supra) has held at paragra ation on 11.10.2010 for appearing in the final year LL.B examination for 2010, w hich was to be held from 04.01.2011 for clearing her one last back paper. Howeve r, the respondents had rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of ’n o more chances’. Thus, the petitioner being aggrieved has submitted that she sho uld be allowed to be given one more chance to clear her LL.B degree course subje ct. [22] The counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has availed of all the chances and thus no more chance can be given to the petitioner to clear her last remaining subject. The respondents counsel h as also submitted that the petitioner not having availed the chances given in re spect of the examinations held in December 2006 and January, 2009, the petitione r cannot now say that she had not been given ample chance as she has given no re asons for taking part in the examinations. [23] ph 10 as follows:- (cid:28)10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing in the instant case. The ratio of Sanowar Hussain (supra) may enable the petitione r to avail of additional chances to clear the LL.B Examination, is it can be sho wn that her failure to appear in the Final Examinations scheduled in the year 20 03, 2004 and 2007 were for reasons beyond the control of the candidates. (cid:29) [24] No. 6019/2007 has held at paragraphs 8 and 9 as follows:- (cid:28)8. The question, now, is as to how many chances the petitioner has received. In this regard, what needs to be noted is that Regulation 14 makes no distinction between a candidate, who fails to pass or fails to appear. Since the petitioner had not appeared, in the year 2003, for his final examination, he would, ordinar ily, be taken to have exhausted one of his chances. If this fact is taken into c onsideration, it logically follows that the petitioner had already utilized his first chance in the year 2003 and he, thereafter, got three more chances, when h e appeared but could not pass in the final examination in the year 2004, 2005 an d 2006. 9. What is, now, of utmost importance to note is that the expression, ’a candida te, who voluntarily fails to pass or who fails to appear’, occurring in Regulati on 14, means a candidate, who voluntarily fails to appear and not a candidate, w ho could not appear for reasons beyond his control. The outer limit for passing LL.B examination is six years. In this backdrop, if the case of the petitioner i s considered, it becomes clear that if the petitioner had been suffering from in sanity, his non-appearance in the final year examination, held in the year 2003, must be treated as involuntary and for reasons beyond his control. In such circ umstances, it is for the respondents to show that the petitioner’s no-appearance This Court in Sanowar Hussain Vrs. Gauhati University and Ors. in WP(C) in the final year examination, in the year 2003, was voluntary. (cid:29) [25] In this appropriate case the examinations for the LL.B final year course for the student of the academic year 2005-2006 was held in the following dates; 1. December 2006, 2. December 2007, 3. January 2009, 4. December 2009 and 5. Ja nuary, 2011. [26] Thus, four examinations have already been held for the petitioner as she was a LL.B preliminary student of the academic year 2003-2004. No reasons have been given by the petitioner as to why she did not appear in the examinations he ld in December 2006 and January 2009. Thus, by following the law laid down by th is Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 of this Court in Sanowar Hussain (supra), it is c lear that the petitioner has exhausted all the four chances for appearing and cl earing her final year course subjects. [27] In that view of the matter, as the petitioner having exhausted all her c hances for examinations, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondents University need not decl are the result of the petitioner in pursuance to the exams taken by her on the o rders of this Court. [28] The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.