WP(C) 5658/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the decision of the Controller of Examinations, Gauhati University (in short, hereinafter referred to as ’the University ) rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for taking the intermediate LL.B. Examination sc heduled to be held on and from 30.10.2010. I have heard Mr D Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr S C hakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. The petitioners’ pleaded case is that they had taken admission in the LL .B. Three Years’ Course under the University in the academic session 2004-05. A fter completion of their preliminary course in the year 2005, they appeared in t he first examination of that course on 19.1.2006. They were, however, unsuccessf ul. In the year 2007, though they took both the preliminary as well as the inter mediate examinations, but could clear only the first course. They unsuccessfully endeavoured to clear the intermediate examination in the subsequent years 2008 and 2009. When they offered their candidature in the ensuing intermediate and fi nal examination scheduled to be held on and from 30.10.2010, they were adjudged ineligible in terms of the relevant Regulations. Being aggrieved, they are befor e this Court. The University in its counter, in essence, has endorsed the impugned dec ision principally on the ground of vagueness in the averments made in the writ p etition bearing on the attempts made by the petitioners in the aforementioned ex aminations so as to demonstrate their eligibility in terms of the relevant Regul ation for appearing in the intermediate and final examination scheduled to be he ld with effect from 30.10.2010. In course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the above contending that as the petitioners are still within the avai lable chances as permitted under the Regulations for sitting in the intermediat e and final examinations for the course, the decision to the contrary is per se arbitrary and is liable to be adjudged as such. According to Mr Baruah, as four chances in all are available to a candidate to clear each course, the petitioner s being well within the same, appropriate directions ought to be issued to the U niversity to permit them to take the ensuing intermediate and final examinations on and from 30.10.2010. Mr Chakraborty has argued that having regard to the Regulations, though a candidate undertaking the course is entitled to four chances, the pleadings of the petitioners being wholly vague and ambiguous, their claim on the basis ther eof ought not to be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a scrutiny of th e pleadings made in the writ petition, this Court considers it appropriate to di spose of the instant petition with the following directions: i) The petitioners would submit a detailed representation before the Contro ller of Examinations, Gauhati University stating all the relevant facts with reg ard to their academic profile vis-à-vis the LL.B. course bearing in mind the pre scriptions of the Regulations in that regard in support of their claim of eligi bility to appear in the forthcoming intermediate and final examinations on and f rom 30.10.2010. ii) The aforesaid authority, the impugned order notwithstanding, would recon sider the representation on the touchstone of the relevant Regulations and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. iii) As admittedly the ensuing examination as above is going to commence on a nd from 30.10.2010, the representation of the petitioners, if filed within 48 ho urs herefrom, would be considered and disposed of within a period of seven days thereafter. iv) The decision so taken would be communicated to the petitioners in writin g forthwith. Needless to say if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the decision so taken by the aforementioned authority, they will be at liberty to pursue their legal r emedies in a Court of law. No costs.