WP(C) 5135/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr S Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr LP Sarma, lea rned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University for the respondents. For the order that I propose to pass, it is not considered essential to issue any formal notice. Petitioner’s pleaded case in brief is that she took admission in the Thr ee Years’ Degree Course (Part 1+1+1) in Arts in BB Krishan College, Jalah (for s hort, hereinafter referred to as ’the College’) in its 2005-06 session. On compl etion of her first year of study she appeared and passed the Part I examination in the year 2006. Though she took examination for Part-II in the year 2007, she failed. She repeated her endeavour in the year 2008 but could not pass as she wa s left with arrear in Education. In the same year i.e. 2008 she also appeared in the final examination which she passed. She unsuccessfully attempted to pass th e Part-II examination in the year 2009 and sought to repeat her endeavour in the year 2010. Admittedly, though the petitioner was not issued admit card for the last examination, according to the petitioner, she was allowed to take the same. She claims to have passed the examination. However, as the University refused t o issue admit card to her and had withheld her results, she is before this Court for redress. Whereas Mr S Ali, learned counsel submits that the University having p ermitted the petitioner to appear in the B.A. Part-III examination in the year 2 010, though she meanwhile had availed her three chances in terms of the Regulati on for B.A. T.D.C. 1+1+1 Pattern (2003-04), in view of its inaction and inadvert ence, the petitioner is entitled to have her results of the Part-II declared. Mr Sarma, however, submits that as the petitioner has availed all the th ree chances sanctioned by the relevant regulation before 2010 she was not entitl ed to appear in the Part-III examination of 2010 and, therefore, whether or not she had been issued admit card, such an attempt has to be construed as non est i n law. Clause 12 of the B.A. T.D.C. 1+1+1 Pattern (2003-04) in clear terms sanc tions three chances to a candidate of the aforementioned course to pass in a seg ment thereof. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the petition er had availed her said chances in 2007, 2008 and 2009 but could not pass the B. A. Part-II examination. Though it is beyond one’s comprehension as to how inspit e of the above she was allowed to take the Part-III examination in 2010, as clai med by her, the fact remains that no admit card has been issued by the Universit y for the same. Her said endeavour, therefore, cannot be taken cognizance of in law. Even otherwise, having admittedly availed all her chances under the Regulat ion, she was not entitled to sit in the Part-II examination in 2010. The plea of indifference, inaction and, thus, estoppel against the petitioner, therefore, i s unconvincing. In the above view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed. No costs.