WP(C) 807/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the non-d eclaration of his results of the B.A. Part-III Examination by the Gauhati Univer sity (hereafter referred to as the University). I have heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner an d Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the University. Briefly stated the recorded case of the petitioner is that he ha d taken admission in the Three years Degree Course (1+1+1) in Arts stream of the University in the year 2004. On the completion of the first year course, he app eared in the B.A. Part-I Examination in the year 2005 and passed the same. Thoug h he appeared in Part-II Examination in the year 2006, he left behind English as arrears. He was therefore declared to have failed. In the next year i.e. 2007, he made a fresh attempt to clear his arrear subject and also sat in the Part-III Examination. However, as he failed in this attempt as well to pass in English i n Part-II, his results in Part-III Examinations were not declared. The petitione r for personal reasons skipped 2008 but appeared in the Part-II Examination in t he year 2009. This time he could clear his arrear subject in English. Inspite th ereof as his Part-III Examination results have not been declared, he is before t his Court for redress. Whereas Mr. Ahmed has urged that considering the number of chanc es permitted under Regulation 12(h), the results of the petitioner’s Part-III Ex amination ought to have been declared, Mr. Sharma submits that on a correct inte rpretation of the said provision, the petitioner is not entitled to his results of Part-III Examination. The rival submissions have been duly considered. Clause (h) of r elevant Regulation reads as follows: h) &.A candidate must pass the Part-I, Part-II and Part-III examinations within three years of completion of Part-III course. In each part maximum of three chan ces each will be available for a candidate subject to the conditions laid down a bove. Having regard to the year of enrolment of the petitioner in the course, the outer limit of time for him to pass the B.A. Examination evidently i s 2010. He also, as the above clause, is entitled to three chances in each part to clear the same. In terms of the narration as above, the petitioner had appear ed in the year 2006, 2007 and 2009 to pass the Part-II Examination. Though he ha d not availed his chance in the year 2008, the same in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Chow Pinkkham Munglang versus Gauha ti University, 2007 (4) GLT 878, cannot be said to have been exhausted by him. In that view of the matter, on an interpretation of Clause (h) of the Regulation s as above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to know hi s B.A. Part-III results. Consequently the University would take immediate steps for declaring the results. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No c osts.