WP(C) 6004/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Ms. M. Alom, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakrab orty, learned standing counsel, Gauhati University (hereinafter referred to as t he ’University’) for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the University to declare her result in BA Part-III examination, in which she appeared in the year 2008. The petitioner had taken admission in the 3 years Degree course of the U niversity in the Session 2004-05 and passed the BA Part-I examination in the yea r, 2005. She was, however, unsuccessful in the BA Part-II examination, in which she appeared in the year, 2006. Not being fully confident about her preparatio n to appear in the same examination in 2007, she skipped her chance in that year . She appeared in the BA Part-II examination in 2008 but she failed. Incidental ly in the same year, she also appeared in the BA Part-III examination. The Unive rsity having refused to declare her result of BA Part-III as she had failed in B A Part-II examination, the petitioner made another attempt in the year, 2009 and was successful. The University having taken a stand that she was ineligible to sit in the BA Part-II examination in terms of the Regulation 12(h) of the Regul ation for B.A. , T.D.C. (1+1+1) Course, she is before this Court seeking redress . The Respondent/ University in its affidavit has interalia admitted that the petitioner had not availed her chance to sit in BA Part-II examination in t he year, 2007. But, however, has insisted that as per the Regulation 12(h), she was not eligible to sit in this examination in the year, 2009. Ms. Alam has urged that since the petitioner has been allowed by the University to sit in the BA Part-III examination, after completion of all formalities, it i s estopped from contending the petitioner’s ineligibility therefor. Thus, an ap propriate Writ or Order ought to be passed directing the University to declare h er results in BA Part-III examination. In support of her pleas, Ms. Alom has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Chow Pinkkham Munglang v-s Gauhati University and others, 2007 (4) GLT 878. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned standing counsel, University, while insistin g that the University is bound by the Regulation 12(h), which is applicable to t he petitioner, has in his usual fairness admitted the applicability of the afore mentioned decision to the facts of the present case. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the rival stands, in face of the decision rendered in Chow Pinkkham Munglang (supra), this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an order directing the Respondent University to declare her result in the BA Part-III exa mination, she having admittedly not availed her chance, otherwise prescribed by the aforementioned Regulation, to sit in the BA Part-II examination in the year 2007. The University authority is directed to declare the results of the petiti oner in BA Part-III examination of the year 2008, forthwith. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.