WA 26/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY Chelameswar, CJ) Aggrieved by judgment dated 19-12-2008 in WP(C) No.5378/08 the u nsuccessful petitioner therein filed the present appeal. 2. The facts of the case, as set out by the learned Judge in the ju dgment under appeal, are as follows :- & & the petitioner had taken admission in the three years LL.B. Degree Course o f the Gauhati University (hereinafter referred to as the ’University’) in the ye ar 2002-2003. The first LL.B. Preliminary Examination of the petitioner was due in the year 2003 which she cleared on the first attempt. She also passed the LL. B. Intermediate Examination in the year 2004. Thereafter, inspite of her constan t endeavours to pass the LL.B. Final Examination which she duly took in the year s 2005, 2006 and 2007 (twice), she could not clear all the subjects. She appeare d in the said examination last held in the month of December, 2007. At that time she was suffering from spondylosis. According to the petitioner, her ailment ha d a felling affect on her performance. She is before this Court for being afford ed another opportunity to clear the arrear paper in her final LL.B. examination, which she could not yet pass. Her representation making the same request has be en rejected by the authorities of the University. 3. By the judgment under appeal the learned Judge dismissed the wri t petition. Hence the present appeal. 4. The Gauhati University, respondent No.1 herein, made Regulations dealing with the various aspects of the legal education by the University or by the Colleges affiliated to the University. The relevant is Regulation 15 which reads as follows :- 15. A candidate shall be required to clear his/her LL.B. degree within six year s from the date of his/her first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary, provided that a student shall be allowed to appear in not more than four chances in each part of the LL.B Examinations. 5. Undisputedly the appellant/writ petitioner joined the three year LL.B. course in the year 2002-2003 and her first Preliminary examination in Dec ember, 2002. The issue before the court is regarding the final year LL.B. examin ation. The appellant/ writ petitioner attempted for the said examination in the month of January, 2005 and failed in two papers. She attempted to clear the pape rs again in January, 2006 but this time was successful in clearing only one pape r. Again she appeared for the said paper in the month of March, 2007 and Decembe r, 2007 but could not clear the paper. It can be seen from the above extracted R egulation 15 that the upper limit permissible under the Regulation of the Univer sity for any candidate for securing the LL.B. Degree is six years from the date of the first examination in the LL.B. course, which admittedly in the case of th e appellant/writ petitioner was held in the month of December, 2002. Apart from the said period the Regulation stipulates that a candidate is permitted only a m aximum four chances in each one of the LL.B. examinations. 6. By a communication dated 16-12-2008 the appellant/ writ petition er was informed by the respondent No.2 that her case cannot be considered as she have already availed all the chances contemplated under Regulation 15. The fact that the appellant/ writ petitioner had availed all the chances contemplated un der Regulation 15 is not disputed by the appellant. All that the appellant/writ petitioner is asking for a 5th chance on the ground that some other candidates w ere permitted to avail such a 5th chance in view of certain orders of this court in WA No.56/2007 and WP(C) No.5124/2007 and, therefore, prays that the same ben efit be given to her also. 7. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal rejected the case of the appellant/writ petitioner and we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. We also do not propose to examine the judgments in t he above mentioned writ appeal and the writ petition but we presume, for the pur pose of the present case, that the facts as stated by the appellant/writ petitio ner are accurate and by virtue of the orders of this court in the above mentione d cases the petitioners therein were permitted to have a 5th opportunity. But su ch an opportunity is clearly contrary to the Regulations of the University, more particularly, in relation to Regulation 15, extracted above. We cannot examine the facts and circumstances under which such a direction came to be given nor it can be decided in the present appeal whether such directions were legally corre ct or not, as this court cannot sit as a court of appeal in those matters. 8. The appellant/writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitut ion of India just establish her legal right for the remedy that she seeks but ca nnot depend upon a precedent with factual similarities and a decision inconsiste nt with the law applicable to the appellant/writ petitioner. It is not the factu al similarity of the precedent that provides the binding nature but it is a lega l principle laid down in a particular precedent which binds the court in the sub sequent proceedings where the issue is identical. 9. In the result the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.