WP(C) 6438/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :: O R A L :: This is a sad, but merit-less case. The petitioner got herself enrolled, in the LL.B. course of three years, in the sessions 2003-04 at Barpeta Law Coll ege under Gauhati University. She appeared, for the first time, in LL.B. prelimi nary examination, held in December, 2003. The petitioner passed LL.B. intermedia te examination held in November, 2005, and, thereafter, she passed the prelimina ry examination held in March, 2007. After completing the preliminary and interme diate examinations, the petitioner appeared, for the first time, in LL.B. final examination, held in December, 2007, but failed. The petitioner, again, sat in t he LL.B. final examination held in January, 2009, wherein also she could not pas s. She made the third attempt in the final examination held in December, 2009, b ut she could not pass her final examination in the third attempt too. Having fai led to clear LL.B. final examination within a period of six years, she submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2, namely, Controller of Examinations, G auhati University, Guwahati, seeking to be allowed a special chance to appear in the LL.B. final examination in the year 2010. By his order, dated 25-10-2010, r espondent No. 2 conveyed to the petitioner that she ought to have completed her course of LL.B. by the examination held in December, 2009. Aggrieved by the reje ction of her representation seeking special chance to appear in the LL.B. final examination in December, 2009, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate dire ction. 2. I have heard Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, appearing on behalf o f the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 3. The core issue, in the present writ petition, is the interpretation of t he Notification, dated 27-09-2007, issued by the Gauhati University, which provi des as follows: &.. One special chance (4th) which will be given to the candidates to any two o f the three LL.B. Examinations (i.e. Preliminary, Intermediate or Final in which this is required) under the Regulation mentioned above provided that a candidat e must complete his/her LL.B. Degree within six years from the date of his/her f irst due examination in LL.B. Preliminary. This will also be applicable for the candidates having back. 4. It is contended by Dr. B Ahmed, learned counsel, that since the petition er did not avail 4th chance in the LL.B. final examination, she ought to have be en, under the Notification, dated 27-09-2007, aforementioned, given special chan ce to appear in the LL.B. final examination held in December, 2010. A reference, in this regard, is also made by Dr. Ahmed to the case of Chow Pinkkham Munglang -vs- Gauhati University and ors. reported in 2007 (4) GLT 878. Resisting the wr it petition, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Unive rsity, points out that the outer limit for passing three year course of LL.B. is , ordinarily, 5 years under Regulation 15 of the University, but under the Notif ication, dated 27-09-2007, a special chance (4th chance) can be availed by a can didate within a period of six years. 5. There can be no doubt that the maximum outer limit for completing a thre e year LL.B. course is six years. In fact, even in Chow Pinkkham Munglang (supra ), which Dr. Ahmed relies upon, a Division Bench of this Court held that in term s of the Notification, dated 27-09-2007, aforementioned, the outer limit of the requisite period of completion of three years LL.B. course is 6 years. Seen in t his light, it becomes transparent that a student has to pass all the three exami nations, namely, Preliminary, Intermediate and Final, within the maximum period of six years from the date of enrolment in the LL.B. course. Keeping this outer limit of six years intact as the maximum period for completion of the course, wh at the Notification, dated 27-09-2007, does is that it gives, one special 4th ch ance to every candidate to avail, in any the two of the three LL.B. examinations . To put it a little differently, though a 4th chance can be availed of by a can didate in any two of the three LL.B. examinations, namely, Preliminary, intermed iate and Final, the outer limit to avail the special 4th chance remains the peri od of six years. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner got herself enrolled in the LL.B . course in the Session 2002-03, she ought to have, admittedly, cleared all the three examinations, within 2009. As the petitioner failed to clear her examinati on within 2009, though the examinations were held, the respondent University was right in rejecting the petitioner’s request to allow her to avail one more chan ce to appear in the final examination to be held in 2010. Situated thus, I do no t find that the impugned order, dated 25-10-2010, suffers from any infirmity, le gal or factual. 7. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this writ pet ition fails; the same is not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed.