WA 373/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL (Amitava Roy, J) Heard Mr SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr S Chakrabort y, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the University’). The appellant had taken admission in the Three Years’ LL. B Course in th e academic session-2003-2004 in the Dhubri Law College, Dhubri. She appeared in the first LL.B. Preliminary Examination of 2004 held in the year 2005, but faile d. In the same year she though had taken the Intermediate Examination, she was u nsuccessful. In the second attempt, however, she cleared the Preliminary Examina tion in the year 2005. In the subsequent years i.e. 2006, 2007 and 2008 though s he availed all the chances she could not fully pass in the Intermediate Examinat ion. As permissible, she appeared parallely in the Final Examination in the year 2007 and 2008 but could not clear the same in full as well. Situated thus, the appellant sought to appear in the Intermediate Examination in the year 2009. How ever, as by then she had exhausted all the four chances as prescribed by the rel evant Regulations of the University, she was denied permission to do so. Being a ggrieved, she approached this Court with WP(C) No. 4629/2009. By an interim orde r passed by the learned Single Judge she was, without prejudice to the rights an d contentions of the parties, allowed to appear in the Intermediate as well as F inal examinations held in the year 2009. She accordingly sat in the examinations . Eventually, however, the learned Single Judge having determined that she was n ot entitled under the aforementioned Regulations to avail a fifth chance vis-à-v is the Intermediate Examination dismissed the writ petition after a full contest . Being aggrieved, she is in appeal. This Court by order dated 15.11.2010 noticing that at an earlier point o f time the appellant/ writ petitioner had been permitted to appear in the interm ediate as well as final examination of the year 2009, required the University to produce her results in a sealed cover with the observation that if she has fail ed for the fifth time the entire issue would become academic. In conformity with the above, Mr Chakraborty has produced the results which disclose that though the appellant had passed the intermediate examination by clearing two arrear Pa pers- V & VII, she has failed in the LL.B. Final Examination. Whereas Mr Ghosh has contended that the appellant having passed the LL.B . Intermediate Examination, though in her fifth attempt, she ought to be allowed to take the Final Examination scheduled to be held on and from 22.12.2010, Mr C hakraborty has insistently urged that as in any view of the matter her results i n the intermediate examination is non-est in view of the prescriptions contained in the relevant Regulations, no further opportunity to her to appear in the Fin al Examination is permissible in law. In this regard, Mr Chakraborty has drawn t he attention of this Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Monmi S arma-vs- Gauhati University & Ors., reported in (2009) 5 GLR 144. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the request made on behalf of the appellant to permit her to appear in the ensuing LL.B. Final Examination cannot be acceded to. Admittedly, the appellant before taking her Intermediate E xamination in the year 2009 had exhausted all the four chances available to her under the relevant Regulations. The permission granted by this Court to appear i n the said examination in the year 2009 was only by way of an interim measure an d not with the purpose and intention of superceding the otherwise clear and unam biguous prescription in the Regulations to the contrary. A Division Bench of thi s Court in Monmi Sarma (supra) in the context of grant of an opportunity in exce ss of the prescriptions of the Regulations has held the same to be contrary ther eto. In the above view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the app eal lacks in merit. The reasonings recorded by the learned Single Judge commend for acceptance. The appeal being without any substance is, thus, dismissed. No costs.