WP(C) 5253/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI JUDGMENT & ORDER Correct interpretation of the Notification, dated 27.09.2007, issued by the Gauhati University, lies at the root of the controversy in this writ petitio n made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Before we enter into the discussions as to what the Notification, dated 27.09.2007, aforementioned conveys, certain admitted facts, which are necessary for effective disposal of the present writ petition, are set out, in brief, as u nder: 3. The petitioner took admission in three year LLB course of Gauhati Univer sity (hereinafter referred to as the ’respondent University’), in the year 2005, his LLB preliminary classes starting in the session 2005-2006. The petitioner passed his LLB Preliminary Examination in the year 2008. The petitioner’s first Intermediate Examination was, admittedly, due in the year 2007, but he (i.e., t he petitioner), according to what the petitioner claims, could not appear in the intermediate examination, in the year 2007, due to his illness. According to t he petitioner, he could not appear in the LLB Intermediate Examination, in the y ear 2008, too, due to his illness. The petitioner, however, appeared in the LLB Intermediate Examination in the year 2009 and 2010, but failed. The petitioner ’s first LLB Final Examination was, admittedly, due in the year 2008, but the pe titioner failed to pass. The petitioner appeared, again, in the LLB Final Exami nation in December, 2010, and passed, but his result was withheld by the authori ties of the respondent University due to his non-clearance of the LLB Intermedia te Examination. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities concern ed to allow him one more chance to clear his LLB Intermediate Examination to be held in the year 2011, but his representation has been rejected by the authoriti es in the respondent University. 4. As the petitioner’s result has been withheld on the ground that he has n ot cleared his LLB Intermediate Examination within the due period and as his req uest for allowing him one more chance to clear his Intermediate Examination has been rejected by the respondent University, the petitioner has put to challenge this decision of the respondent University by making the present writ petition u nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner contends that as per Regulations 14 and 15 of the respond ent University’s ’New Regulations and Syllabus for LLB Course with effect from 2 000’ (hereinafter referred to as the ’University Regulations’), read with Notifi cation, dated 27.09.2007, issued by the respondent University, the petitioner ge ts six years’ time, from the first due date of Preliminary Examination, to compl ete his LLB course and, hence, as the petitioner’s LLB Preliminary Examination w as first due in the year 2006, the petitioner ought to be allowed to appear, in the LLB Intermediate Examination, which is scheduled to be held in November, 201 1. 6. I have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, and Mr. L. P. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Ga uhati University, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 7. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that u nder Regulation 14 of the University Regulations, if a candidate fails to pass, or fails to appear, in the first due LLB examination, he/she must pass the said examination within the next two consecutive examinations, which may be held, mea ning thereby that according to Regulation 14, since Intermediate Examination of the petitioner became due in 2007, he was, under the Regulation 14, required to pass his Intermediate Examination with the next two consecutive examinations, na mely, 2008 and 2009. This position becomes clear from a reading of Regulation 1 4, which is reproduced below: A candidate, who fails to appear in the first due examination, shall have to pa ss in that examination within the period of holding he next two consecutive exam inations. 8. Coupled with the above, Regulation 15 of the University Regulations read s, A candidate shall be required to clear his/her LLB degree within five years from the date of his/her first due examination in LLB. Preliminary, provided tha t a student shall be allowed to appear in not more than three chances in each pa rt of the LLB examinations. 9. A combined reading of Regulation 14 and 15 of the University Regulations makes it clear that before the Notification, dated 27-09-2007, was published, ( i) a candidate of LLB degree course, under the respondent University, was to be allowed altogether 5 (five) years time from the date of his/her first due examin ation of LLB to clear his/her degree, (ii) that a student was to be allowed not more than three chances to appear in each part of the LLB examinations and (iii) that these three chances, allowed to a candidate to appear and clear each part of the LLB examinations, was to commence from, and even, now, commences from the first due examination and be completed by the next two consecutive examinations to be held for that part of the LLB examination. 10. Close on the heels of Regulation 14 and 15, the Notification, dated 27.0 9.2007, reads as under: One special chance (fourth) each will be given to the candidates to any two of the three LLB examinations (i.e. preliminary, intermediate or Final in which thi s is required) under the Regulation mentioned above provided that a candidate mu st complete his/her LLB degree within six years from the date of his/her first d ue examination in LLB preliminary. This will also be applicable for the candida te having back. 11. The notification, dated 27.09.2007, shows that though Regulation 15 says that a student shall not be allowed to avail more than three chances in each pa rt of the LLB examination, one ’special chance’ shall be given to him/her in any two of the three LLB examinations, i.e., preliminary, intermediate or final, pr ovided that he/she completes his/her LLB degree within six years from the date o f his/her first due examination in LLB preliminary. 12. A microscopic analysis of Regulation 14 and 15, read with the Notificati on, dated 27.09.2007, makes it abundantly clear that a candidate is, now, requir ed to be given, ordinarily, three chances in each part of the LLB examinations a nd that he/she shall be given a special (fourth) chance in any two of the three LLB examinations, i.e., preliminary, intermediate, or final, whichever is requir ed. 13. In the case at hand, the petitioner had been admitted in LLB course unde r the respondent University in the session 2005-2006. His first Intermediate Ex amination, already fell due in the year 2007, the second consecutive Intermediat e Examination became due in the year 2008, his third consecutive Intermediate Ex amination fell due in the year 2009 and his fourth consecutive Intermediate Exam ination became due in the year 2010. 14. In view of the fact that the petitioner was, admittedly, given, commenci ng from the year 2007 to 2010, altogether four chances to clear his Intermediate examination, but he could not avail of all the four chances, the petitioner con tends that since he has not availed the fourth chance, he must be given, in term s of the Notification, dated 28.09.2007, the fourth chance to appear in the Inte rmediate Examination. 15. With regard to the above contention of the petitioner, when one consider s Regulations 14 and 15 along with Notification, dated 27.09.2007, it transpires that in case a candidate fails to pass, or fails to appear in, his first due ex amination, he shall have to pass in that examination within the next two consecu tive examinations. When considered in this light, it becomes crystal clear that since the petitioner’s first Intermediate Examination was due in the year 2007, wherein he could not appear, he ought to have passed the Intermediate Examinati on within the next two consecutive Intermediate Examination, that is, within the year 2009, and, in this way, he could have availed two more chances, as provide d under Regulation 15, but under the Notification, dated 27.09.2007, one more ch ance was required to be given to him. It is important to note, in this regard, that Regulation 14 requires that, if a candidate fails to pass, or fails to app ear in, the first due examination, he/she must pass that examination within the period of holding of the next two consecutive examinations. 16. In the case at hand, the petitioner was required to appear and pass his LLB Intermediate Examination in the year 2007. As he could not appear in the ye ar 2007, he was to receive, in the light of Regulations 14 and 15, read with Not ification, dated 27.09.2007, three more consecutive chances, that is, altogether four chances and his fourth consecutive chance elapsed, by efflux of time, in t he year 2010. 17. Since the petitioner had been given four chances, commencing from 2007 t ill 2010, to pass his Intermediate Examination, the fact that the petitioner did not avail one of such chances cannot be made a ground to direct the respondent University to give the petitioner one more chance, because that would make the c oncept of consecutive examinations, which Regulation 14 embodies, otios, meaning less and redundant. If the petitioner’s contention is acceded to, it would amou nt to giving him ’fifth’ chance to pass his Intermediate Examination. What is r equired, under the said two Regulations and the notification, dated 27.09.2007, is that a candidate has to be ’given’ four chances in any two of the three LLB e xaminations, i.e., preliminary, intermediate and final. It is not necessary tha t if a candidate does not avail a chance, it will be tantamount to not giving a chance to the candidate concerned. In the case at hand, commencing from the ye ar 2007, as many as four chances were given and/or made available to the petitio ner. As the petitioner has not availed all the four chances, he cannot demand a nother chance to be given to him to pass his Intermediate Examination. This Cou rt does not, therefore, find any substance in the present writ petition. 18. In support of the case of the petitioner, Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sen ior counsel, has referred to, and relied upon, the case of Chow Pinkham Mungland v. Gauhati University and ors., 2007 (4) GLT 878. I do not find that this case lays down that even if four chances were made available to a candidate and he/s he did not or could not avail one of the four chances, then, he would be entitle d to receive, at his option, the fifth chance. The word, ’chance’ means opportu nity and, when a candidate is given an opportunity, but he/she fails to avail th e same, he would nevertheless be taken to have, in the light of Regulation 14, b een given the chance. This apart, it may be noted that in Chow Pinkham Mungland (supra), the Notification, dated 27.09.2007, was not considered and, hence, the decision, in Chow Pinkham Mungland (supra), cannot be said to be applicable to the case in hand. 19. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do es not find that the writ petitioner has been able to make out any case warranti ng interference by this Court, in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction un der Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the impugned decision of the respondent University not to allow the petitioner to avail any further chance to appear and pass Intermediate Examination. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 20. No order as to cost.