WP(C) 2639/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the Assam Agricultura l University (hereafter referred to as the University) to grant her two addition al semesters/chances to clear the fifth year class of the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Degr ee course being pursued by her till date. I have heard Mr. P.J, Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Katakey, learned Standing Counsel for the University. In short, the petitioner’s pleaded case is that she had taken ad mission in the five years B.V. Sc. and A.H. course of the University in the year 1998 and attended the same at the College of Veterinary, Khanapara, Guwahati. T he course comprises of 10 semesters, which a student is required to clear in 18 chances. Each year course constitutes of two semesters. A candidate is, therefor e, allowed 8 extra chances to complete the course. According to the petitioner, till July/August, 2007, she had availed all the 18 chances clearing 8 semesters upto the 4th year. Having exhausted all the chances sanctioned under the Regulat ion on Academic Matters, 1989 (since replaced by the Regulation of Academic Matt ers, 2003) (hereafter referred to as the Academic Regulations), she has been ref used admission to the fifth year class. Her assertion is that keeping in view he r performance from time to time more particularly during the academic sessions 1 999-2000, 2002-03 and 2005-2006, she ought to have been brought under the academ ic probation scheme comprehended under the Regulations but the respondents havin g omitted to do so, the petitioner has wasted six chances. According to her, had those chances been available to her she would not have been placed today in suc h a precarious condition. The petitioner while contending that she belongs to an economically poor scheduled caste family has implored for a direction to the re spondents to grant her two extra semester/chances to complete the course. The University in its affidavit has contended that the Veterinary Council of Ind ia (Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education) Degree Course (B.B.Sc. & A.H.) Re gulations, 1993, (hereafter referred to as the VCI Regulations) having been adop ted by the University, the provisions of the Academic Regulations stood displace d thereby. It is only when the VCI Regulations are silent on any particular issu e that the Academic Regulations are enforceable. Referring to Regulation 9(8) of the VCI Regulations, the University has averred that the petitioner having fail ed in more than one subject in the intervening semesters she was rightly not pro moted to the next higher class and, therefore, the contentions based on the prov isions of the Academic Regulations to the contrary and the grievance of wastage of chances is untenable. As the petitioner in the meantime, has consumed all the 18 chances to clear the course, no more semester/chance is available to her and , therefore, the impugned decision cannot be faulted with. The University has af firmed the decision rejecting the petitioner’s representation for additional cha nces/semesters. Mr. Saikia has urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case Regulation 9(8) of the VCI Regulations is not attracted as the same is conf ined to its applicability only to the practical examinations. It being the solem n duty of the University and its authorities under the relevant provisions of th e Academic Regulations more particularly Regulation 3.10 to maintain a constant vigil on the performance of the students and if need be to place them under acad emic probation and allow them to take repeat examinations, the inflexible stand of the respondent authority vis-à-vis the number of semesters is unfair and unju st, he urged. Mr. Saikia contended that having regard to the fact that the petit ioner has been relentlessly pursuing the course, which is evident from her consi stent efforts to complete the same, in view of her family background as well, sh e ought to be offered two more semesters/chances to take the 5th year classes. T he learned Counsel has also urged with reference to clause 1.01.4 of the Academi c Regulations that the rejection of the petitioner’s representation not having b een made by the Vice Chancellor of the University, the same is nonest in law and is of no consequence. Mr. Kataki in reply has urged that as admittedly the petitioner has exhausted her all available chances prescribed by the Academic Regulations s he is not entitled to any further chance more particularly in the absence of any provision of relaxation in that regard either in the Academic Regulations or in the VCI Regulations. He stood by the stand that the petitioner was rightly not promoted to the higher classes she having failed in more than one subject in the relevant semesters. Mr. Katakey, however, could not assert with certainty that the rejection of the petitioner’s representation had been by the Vice Chancellor of the University. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced have bee n duly noticed. Neither of the two aforesaid Regulations contains any provision in particular empowering the University or any authority thereof to relax the ri gour thereof. Admittedly the petitioner has utilized all the 18 semesters/chance s in clearing the 4th year of the course. Going by the letters of the Academic R egulations, therefore, she is not entitled to any further chance or semester. Th e applicability of clause 3.10 of the Academic Regulations has not been strictly disputed on behalf of the University though according to it in terms of clause 9(8) of the VCI Regulations, the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted to t he next class she having failed in more than one subject. Evidently this sub-cla use, an integral part of clause 9 of the VCI Regulations appear under Chapter M anual of Practicals . Be that as it may, in view of the time lag since the sessi on in which, according to the petitioner, in view of her performance and the F G rade obtained by her, she was entitled to be allowed to appear in repeat examina tion, this Court is not inclined to offer any observation thereon. Noticeably the petitioner though had utilized the otherwise pres cribed chances/semesters, she has not given up the course. Instead of her failur es in between, she has pursued the same. There is no dispute that as on date, sh e has passed the 4th year of the course. The petitioner’s representation (Annexu re C to the writ petition) addressed to the Vice Chancellor contains a candid di sclosure on her part to have utilized the stipulated semesters/chances with a re quest to provide her with two more semesters to complete the course. Her represe ntation discloses a self-belief that she would complete the 5th year if granted two more semesters/chances. The communication dated 9/4/207 conveying the reject ion of her representation is on the plain ground that grant of two more semester s sought for by her is not permissible, she having utilized in the meantime 18 s emesters, the maximum prescribed. Clause 1.01.04 of the Academic Regulations provides that in the matter of interpretation of the provisions thereof the decision of the Vice Chan cellor would be final subject to such advice that would be tendered by the Board of Management or the Academic Council. This provision is demonstrative of a pre rogative vested in the Vice Chancellor to interpret any provision of the Academi c Regulation consistent with the scheme and objectives thereof. The issue of per missibility of semesters/chances beyond those prescribed can thus be legitimatel y examined by him. It is not very clear as to whether the decision to reject the petitioner’s representation had been taken by the Vice Chancellor of the Univer sity. In view of the ultimate authority vested with the Vice Chancellor to take a decision in matters pertaining to the interpretation of the provisions, in the opinion of this Court, the representation ought to have been attended to and di sposed of by the said authority. In course of the hearing as well it could not b e clarified as to whether it has been the Vice Chancellor of the University who had rejected the petitioner’s representation. On a totality of the facts and circumstances of the cases and ha ving regard in particular to the fact that the petitioner is at the threshold of her completion of the course, this Court is of the view that the Vice Chancello r of the University ought to consider the petitioner’s representation afresh and take an appropriate decision in that regard. Needless to say, as the Academic H ead of an educational institution, the prime purpose whereof is to impart educat ion to its students and encourage their bonafide pursuit relating thereto, he is expected to adopt a realistic and rational approach and take a decision as deem ed fit and proper. As the Session of the 5th year class has begun the decision a s intended should be taken by the aforementioned authority within a period of tw o weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.