WP(C) 94/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Ms Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Chakraborty, lea rned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University (for short ,hereafter referred to as t he ’University’). The petitioner is aggrieved by the non declaration of his results of Pt -III Examination of B.A. Course(1+1+1) of the University. He took admission in t he said course in the academic session 2003-2004 in Anandaram Dhekial Phukan Col lege, Nagaon (hereafter referred to as the ’College’) . As due, he had passed th e Pt-I Examination in the year 2004 in his first attempt. He skipped the Pt-II Examination ,2005 and failed to clear the said Examination in the next year i.e. 2006. He chose to abstain from the said examination in the year 2007, but took it in the year 2008 and passed the same. The petitioner with a mind to appear in the Pt-III Examination, the academic course whereof , he had traversed in the m eantime, in the year 2008,completed all necessary formalities in connection the rewith and the University issued the admit card to him. The petitioner accordin gly sat in the Pt-III Examination which commenced from 26.3.2008 . Though the r esults of the said examination was declared on 27.6.2008, his was withheld. The University in its counter in essence, has contended that as the peti tioner had failed to clear the BA Pt-II Examination in three consecutive chance s available to him under Regulation 12(h) of the Regulation for B.A. T.D.C. 1+1+ 1 pattern , he was not eligible to appear in the Pt-III Examination in the same year. As a matter of fact, according to the answering respondent, he was not ent itled in terms of the above provision of the Regulation to have his results als o for the BA Pt-II Examination declared , he having failed to clear the same du ring 2005-2007 . Ms Das has urged that as the University had permitted the petitioner to appear in the BA. Pt-II Examination in the year 2008 and had declared his result s, the plea to the contrary is untenable and therefore, in terms of the Regulati on 12(h) of the Regulation, he being within the prescribed period for appearing for the BA Pt-III Examination , his results ought to be declared. She further c ontended that the University having accepted the petitioner’s candidature for wh ich the admit card to him had been issued for BA Pt III Examination, it is esto pped from withholding his results. Mr Chakraborty in reply ,has argued that as admittedly the petitioner ha d failed to clear the BA Pt-II Examination in three consecutive chances availabl e to him as per the aforementioned Regulation, though his results for BA Pt-II E xamination had been wrongly declared, the same by no means vests him with any ri ght to have his results of BA Pt-III Examination declared. I have extended my anxious consideration to the rival pleadings and the documents based thereon. It would be apt at this stage to extract Regulation 12 (h) which takes the center stage of the debate : 12(h) . A candidate must pass the Part-I,Part-II and Part-III examinat ions within three years of completion of Part-III course. In each part maximum of three chances each will be available for a candidate subject to the condition s laid down above. In terms of the above provision of the Regulation, a candidates is requ ired essentially to pass each of the parts within three consecutive chances av ailable to him subject to the condition that he/she has to clear all the parts within three yers of completion f the Part-III course . In the instant case, the outer limit of the period available to pass the entire course is 2008. However, in terms of Regulation 12(h) as above, the max imum chances available to him to clear any part of the course are three. The petitioner who had passed Pt I Examination in the year 2004,thereafter did not t ake Pt II Examination in 2005 and 2007. Though he appeared in the year 2006 he failed. Eventually, he passed the said examination in the year 2008. Strictly c onstrued therefore, the petitioner ought not to have been permitted to appear in the Pt-II Examination in the year 2008. However, as the records disclose he w as not only permitted to take the Examination, his results thereof were also de clared showing him to have passed the same. In that view of the matter, this Cou rt does not feel persuaded to sustain the plea of the University holding him in eligible to appear in the Part II Examination,2008 on the ground that in 2008 he had exhausted all the three chances to pass Pt II Examination. In the facts an d circumstances of the case, the University having allowed the petitioner to ap pear in the Pt III Examination ,2008 being fully aware of the prescriptions of R egulation 12(h) of the Regulation, in the opinion of this Court, it would be unf air to deny the petitioner his results of the BA Pt III Examination on that coun t. In terms of the order of this court, Mr Chakraborty has produced the petiti oner’s results of BA Pt III Examintion,2008 in a sealed cover. For obvious rea sons, the same is not disclosed in the present order. In view of the above determination, in the singular facts and circumstan ces of the case, this Court is of the view that a direction ought to be issued to the University to declare the petitioner’s results of the BA Pt III Examinait on,2008. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. The petitioner’s results are returned to Mr Chakrabroty in a sealed cover. No costs.