WP(C) 5939/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned standing counsel Gauhati University along with Mr. Chakrabort y, learned advocate. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to allow him to appear in the LL.B. Final Examination (arre ar paper) scheduled to be held on and from 22.12.2010. The prayer so made is on account of the non-acceptance of the application form and requisite fee by the r espondent university on the ground of exceeding the permissible chances to appea r in the examination. Paragraph 15 of the University Regulation pertaining to LL .B. Course provides as follows:- 15. A candidate shall be required to clear his/her LL.B. degree within five year s from the date of his/her first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary, provided that a student shall be allowed to appear in not more than three chances in each part the LL.B. Examinations. The aforesaid regulation has been modified by notification dated 27.09.2 007 in terms of which a candidate is to clear LL.B. course within 6(six) years f rom the date of first due examination (LL.B. Preliminary). One more chance has b een added to the earlier three chances in any two of the three LL.B. Examination s (i.e. Preliminary, Intermediate and Final). However, all the four chance are t o be availed of within the outer limit of 6(six) years. In the instant case, the first due examination of the petitioner was in the year 2003 in which he duly appeared. His next due examinations were in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Taking into account the first due examination (LL.B. Preliminary) in 2003, the petitioner was to complete his LL.B. course/deg ree within 6(six) years i.e. within 2009. The petitioner appeared in the LL.B. f inal examination in March 2007, December 2007, January 2009 and again in Decembe r 2009. Thus apart from the fact that he has exhausted all the four chances, the outer limit of 6(six) years also stood expired in 2009. In such a situation no direction can be issued to the University authority to violate the University Re gulation by way of allowing the petitioner to appear in the LL.B. final examinat ion scheduled to be held in December, 2010. The above view finds support from the judgment of a Division Bench of th is Court reported in 2009(5) GLR 144 (Monmi Sarma Vs. Gauhati University and ors .). The writ petition is dismissed. Irrespective of dismissal of the writ petition, it will be open for the petitioner to approach the university authority, if so advised.