WP(C) 5553/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. LP Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. The facts, in short, necessary for disposal of the instant petit ion are that the petitioner had taken admission in the three years LLB Course of the Gauhati University (hereafter for short referred to as the University), in Goalpara Law College in the year 2004. Though, since 2006 he admittedly, appear ed in the preliminary examination and meanwhile availed four chances, he has not been able to clear the same. In his last attempt in the year 2009, he cleared the other two subjects, but he was in arrear in land laws. He, however, cleared his intermediate examination in the year 2007. As the petitioner has not been permitted to sit in the ensuing LLB Preliminary examination scheduled to commenc e on and from 18.12.2009 to clear his arrear subject as above, he is before this Court for redress. Mr. Mahmud submits that as in terms of Regulation 15 of the rele vant Regulations, the petitioner is within the outer limit of six years, he ough t not to be denied a further opportunity of taking the Preliminary examination, though, meanwhile, he had exhausted the four chances prescribed therefor. Mr. Sarma submits that though the petitioner, considering the ye ar of his admission in the course, is within the permissible period of six years to pass the course, he having admittedly, availed the four chances to pass the Preliminary examination in terms of Regulation 15, he is not entitled to be gran ted any further chance therefor. For ready reference Regulation 15 of the Regulations is quoted h ereunder: - A candidate shall be required to clear his/her LLB degree withi n six years from the date of his/her first due examination in LLB., Prelimin ary, provided that a student shall be allowed to appear in not more than four chances in each part of the LLB Examination. Having regard to the contents of the Regulation 15 as quoted her einabove, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plea taken on behalf o f the University cannot be brushed aside. This Court is, therefore, not incline d to issue the direction as sought for by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner if so advised, may file an app ropriate representation before the concerned authority of the University reitera ting his prayer made before this Court. If that is done, the University, having regard to the date of commencement of the examination would take a decision vis -a-vis the representation by 16.12.2009 in accordance with law. The petition st ands disposed in the above terms. No costs.