WP(C) 6342/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER The petitioner seeks a declaration that the chance availed by hi m in the final LL.B. Examination held from 29.12.2007, as permitted by this Cour t, is within the sanctionable limit of the number of attempts prescribed by the extant regulations of the Gauhati University (hereinafter referred to as ’the Un iversity’) in this regard and further prays for a direction for declaration of h is result therein. 2. I have heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petition er and Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. 3. Briefly stated, the pleaded case of the petitioner is that after his graduation, he took admission in the three years LL.B. Course in the Univer sity Law College, Guwahati University during the session 2000-01. He passed the preliminary examination in the year 2001 in all subjects. In the intermediate ex amination held in the month of February, 2002 he could not clear three papers. I n two attempts, thereafter, he passed the remaining papers eventually in the yea r 2005. He having been allowed to pursue the final year course in the meantime, his examination was therefor due in the year 2003. Though he sat in the examinat ion in the said year, he failed. In the year 2004, he could not appear in the LL .B. Final Examination because of his illness. The examination for the year sched uled for the year 2005 was postponed till January, 2006 and though the petitione r made another endeavour, he failed again. The petitioner in his relentless effo rt to pass the course, submitted the examination form to make another attempt in the examination proposed to be held on 09.03.2007. However, on being refused th e admit card, he approached this Court and in terms of an interim order passed, he could appear in the final examination. In the results declared on 06.12.2007 it transpired that he had failed in two papers, but the marks secured by him in practical subjects had not been added, resulting in deficiency in percentage. He , though entitled to another chance to appear in the LL.B. final examination, be ing refused that opportunity, has approached this Court. 4. By order dated 19.12.2007, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the petitioner to appear in the ensuing LL.B. fi nal examination scheduled to commence from 29.12.2007. The petitioner accordingl y completed the necessary formalities and took the examination. He now prays for declaration of his results. 5. The University in its counter has pleaded that the petitioner, c omputed from the year of his admission to the course, was due to appear in the L L.B. Final Examination in the year 2003 and he having exhausted all his chances as permissible under the Regulations in the year 2005, he was not allowed to app ear in the said examination thereafter. Though in compliance of the order dated 08.03.2007 of this Court he was permitted to sit in the said examination, he fai led. According to the University, the petitioner is not entitled to appear in th e LL.B. final examination after 2006 and to endorse this stand Regulation 14 and 15 of New Regulations & Syllabus for LL.B. Courses with effect from 2000 have been relied upon. 6. Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with reference to a Notification dated 27.09.2007 issued by the Controller of E xaminations, Gauhati University that a candidate pursuing LL.B. Course is thereb y entitled to avail one special chance (4th chance) in any of the three examinat ions (Preliminary, Intermediate or Final) under the aforementioned Regulations p rovided he/she completes the course within 6 (six) years from the date of his/he r due examination in his/her first LL.B. preliminary examination. The learned co unsel has maintained that the petitioner having passed the LL.B. Preliminary Exa mination in the year 2001, the outer limit of six years would end in the year 20 07 and in appearing in the examination on 29.12.2007 he was within the four chan ces available under the Notification and as such he is entitled to have his resu lts declared. In addition to contending that denial of results in the facts and circumstances of the case would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, who c omes from a very humble family, Mr. Mazumdar has urged that the same would also be opposed to the letter and spirit of the said Notification. To butress his arg uments Mr. Mazumdar has placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 13.12. 2007 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6019/2007 (Sonowar Hussain vs The Gauhati Universi ty & Others). 7. Mr. S. Chakravarty, as against this has argued that as the perio d of six years vis-à-vis the petitioner’s term would expire in the year 2006 in terms of the Regulations as well as the Notification dated 27.09.2007 he is not entitled to appear in the LL.B. Final Examination thereafter. Though in complian ce of the order of this Court he has been permitted to sit in such examination h eld from 29.12.2007, he cannot claim any right in law to have his results declar ed as in the facts and circumstances of the present case the same would be in co ntravention of the Regulations. 8. The rival pleadings and the arguments advanced have received the due consideration of this Court. Indubitably, the petitioner has passed the Pre liminary Examination in the year 2001. The Notification dated 27.09.2007 permits One Special Chance (4th) to the candidates pursuing LL.B. Course under the Un iversity in any two of the three LL.B. examinations provided he completes the co urse within six years from the date of his/her first due examination in LL.B. P reliminary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having t aken admission in the year 2000, his first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary was in the year 2001. Incidentally, he passed the said examination in the same y ear. A plain reading of the aforementioned notification goes to show that the petitioner is required to complete his course within six years from that year i. e. 2001. In the estimate of this Court, having regard to the language applied, t he period of six years in the case in hand would culminate in the year 2007. The plea on behalf of the University to peg it to the year 2006, does not appeal to this Court. Firstly, the language does not endorse that construction and second ly, even assuming that there is some scope for that inference, an interpretation , having regard to the object of the notification, favourable to the candidates ought to be adopted. The petitioner, though due, did not appear in the LL.B. Fin al Examination in the year 2004 due to his illness. He renewed his endeavour to clear the said examination the year 2006, but was unsuccessful. The examination for the year 2005 was held in 2006. Eventually, on the strength of the interim o rder of this Court he again appeared in LL.B. Final Examination held from 09.02. 2007. His results in the said examination eventually were declared in compliance of the order dated 27.11.2007 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.1150 of 2007. He b eing not fully successful, sought to avail another chance, which, according to h im was available under the notification. 9. The petitioner having not appeared in the LL.B. Final Examinatio n in the year 2004, he cannot said to have availed that chance in terms of the d ecision of this Court in Chow Pinkkham Munglang vs. Gauhati University & Others, reported in 2007 (4) GLT 878. He, therefore, for all intents and purpose has av ailed the fourth chance by his last attempt as permissible under the aforementio ned notification within the period of six years from the date of his first exami nation in LL.B.(Preliminary) expiring in the year 2007. The petitioner having be en permitted by this Court to sit in the LL.B. Final Examination, which commence d from 29.12.2007, in the opinion of this Court, in view of the above determinat ion, is entitled to have his results declared by the University. The petitioner, as the facts of this case demonstrate, is within the ambit of the application o f the notification dated 27.09.2007 and is, therefore, entitled to his results. 10. In the above view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The U niversity would declare the results of the petitioner of his final LL.B. examina tion 2007 in which he did appear as permitted by the order dated 29.12.2007 of t his Court. Depending on his results in this examination, the University would de clare his status vis-à-vis the LL.B. course. As the petitioner waits an expectat ion, this should be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt o f a certified copy of this order. No costs.