WP(C) 5763/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner in his relentless pursuit to acquire the LL.B. Degree fro m the Gauhati University (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the University’ ) seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for annulment of the decis ion contained in the letter dated 27.9.2010 (Anneure-3 to the writ petition) ref using his admission to the intermediate examination scheduled to be held in the month of October, 2010. I have heard Mr NN Karmakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. The petitioner had taken admission in the Three Years LL.B. Course of th e University in the year 2004 and on completion of the first year of study he un successfully attempted to clear the preliminary examination in the year 2005 and 2007. Incidentally, the examination of the year 2006 for the said course was he ld in the year 2007. Undaunted by his failures he took a third chance in the sam e year of 2007 and cleared the preliminary examination. In the same year, he mad e two endeavours to clear the intermediate examination in which he failed. He wa s unsuccessful in his subsequent attempts in the year 2008 and 2009 as well. In a bid to clear the intermediate course he approached the University seeking admi ssion to appear in the examination scheduled to be held in the month of October, 2010. The request having been declined he is before this Court. Referring to Regulation 15 of the New Regulations & Syllabus for LL.B. C ourse (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Regulations’) formulated by th e University, Mr Karmakar has insistently urged that the chances referred to the rein ought to be counted by excluding the examinations in which a candidate appe ars but fails. According to him, as four chances are now available to a candidat e in terms of the Notification dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) , the petitioner is still within the limits thereof and, thus, the refusal on th e part of the University to allow him to take the intermediate examination of 20 10 is grossly in contravention of the above provision of the Regulations as well as the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Notification. Mr Chakraborty, in reply, has urged that it being apparent on a conjoint reading of Regulation 15 and the Notification dated 27.9.2007 that a candidate in all can avail four chances to pass each part of the LL.B. examination, the pe titioner having exhausted all, he was rightly declined the permission to appear in the intermediate examination of 2010. That the petitioner had unsuccessfully endeavoured to pass the intermedi ate examination on four occasions as recited hereinabove is an admitted fact. A bare reading of Regulation 15 makes it abundantly clear that a candidate will be required to clear his/her LL.B. Degree within five years from the date of his/h er first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary and he/she is permitted to appear in not more than three chances in each segment thereof. By the Notification date d 27.9.2007 the outer limit of the period within which a candidate is to clear h is/her LL.B. Degree has been enhanced to six years. Similarly, the number of cha nces prescribed has been made four, the last chance being a special one to the c andidates of any two of the three LL.B. Examinations. In other words, a cumulati ve reading of Regulation 15 and the Notification requires a candidate to clear h is/her LL.B. Degree within a period of six years from the date of his/her first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary and subject of course to a ceiling of four chances as above. In the case in hand the petitioner’s first due examination in LL. B. Pre liminary was in the year 2005 and, therefore, he is within the prescribed limit of six years therefrom. To reiterate, the petitioner as on date had appeared in the intermediate examination four times but had failed. An analysis of the provi sions of the aforementioned provisions of the Regulation and the Notification, i n the opinion of this Court, does not permit the construction as sought to be su ggested on behalf of the petitioner. The language of Regulation 15 and the Notif ication dated 27.9.2007 is unambiguously clear limiting the period within which a candidate is to clear his/ her LL.B Degree for which four chances to the maxim um is available to him/her. If the interpretation as sought to be provided on be half of the petitioner is accepted it would visibly enhance the number of chance s, as has been contemplated by the University. Even otherwise, reckoning of a c hance only in case of failure of a candidate to pass an examination appears to b e prima facie illogical and irrational. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner having admittedly exhaus ted all his four chances in passing the intermediate examination, the impugned d ecision of the University in declining permission to him to appear in the said e xamination of 2010 cannot be faulted with. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.