WP(C) 4354/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned SC, Gauhati University. I have also heard Mr. H. Talukdar, l earned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-declaration of his results pertaining to BA Part-III Examination, 2008. His results have been withheld on the ground that he had appeared in the BA Part-II Examination and cleared the same beyond t he permissible limit as per the University Regulation. It is stand of the respon dent University that the petitioner could not have appeared in BA Part-II Examin ation in the year 2009 as the same was beyond his permissible chances. As per t he University Regulation, the permissible limit to appear in any one of the thre e examinations leading to BA Degree, i.e. Part-I, Part-II and Part-III, is only three chances. However, the petitioner availed two additional chances in BA Part -II Examination. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner’s result pertaini ng to BA Part-II Examination has already been declare and the mark sheet of the same has already been issued to him. He has cleared the said examination. Now the question before this Court is as to whether the petitioner’s res ult pertaining to BA Part-III Examination can be withheld on the ground of excee ding chances in BA Part-II Examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner refe rring to the decisions in W.P.(C) No. 4906/2008 (Shri Prabhat Machary vs. State of Assam and others); Shri Krishan vs. Kurukshetra University reported in AIR 1 976 SC 376; Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and ors. reported in AIR 1990 sc 1076, submits that since the Gauhati University allowed the petitioner to ap pear in the examination in question, they now are estopped from questioning the same. He further submits that justice and equity demand that the result of the petitioner be declared. Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned SC, Gauhati University on the other hand referri ng to the decision in Munmi Sarma vs. Gauhati University & ors. reported in 200 5 (5) GLR 144, submits that no direction can be issued for declaring the results of the petitioner in violation of the Rules and Regulation. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties. As noted above, the fact of the matter is that the result pertaining to BA Part-II Examination in respect of the petitioner has al ready been declared and he cleared the same. When the petitioner appeared in the said examination which according to the University authority was beyond the pe rmissible chances, the University never objected to the same, rather approved th e candidature of the petitioner and thereafter declared the result. Although the University allowed the petitioner to appear in the BA Part-III Examination, but now the University withheld the result of the same on the ground that the peti tioner appeared BA Part-II Examination beyond the permissible limit. In this con nection, the Apex Court in the case of Shri Krishan and Sanatan Gauda (supra), has held that estoppel will apply against the University authority. Similar view has been expressed in Shri Prabhat Machary (supra) and Archana Goswami vs. Stat e of Assam reported in 1998 (1) GLT 188. In view of the above and there being no allegation of any foul play on t he part of the petitioner, this writ petition is allowed directing the Universit y authority to declare the results of the petitioner pertaining to BA Part-III E xamination. This shall be done as expeditious as possible. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that there was some mis take in forwarding the candidature of the petitioner to the University. The resp ondent No. 4 shall be careful in future.