WP(C) 4007/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI JUDGMENT & ORDER ( ORAL ) Heard Mr. N. N. Jha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1. Head also Mr. L. P . Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The writ petitioner’s case is, in brief, thus: The petitioner was admitt ed into three years B.A. degree course (TDC) in the academic session 2003-2004 u nder the Gauhati University (hereinafter referred to as the ’respondent Universi ty’). The petitioner appeared in B.A. Part-I examination in the year 2004 and p assed. In the academic session 2004-2005, the petitioner did not appear in B.A. Part-II examination, which was held in the year 2005. The petitioner, however, appeared in the B.A. Part-II examination held in 2006, but failed to pass. The petitioner, then, once again, appeared in the B.A. Part-II examination in the y ear 2007, but failed to pass. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the B.A. P art-II examination in the year 2008 and passed. 3. Close on the heels of the his results of the B.A. Part-II examination, a s indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner appeared in the B.A. Part-III (final) e xamination in the year 2008, but his result was withheld. According to the resp ondent University, the result of the petitioner’s B.A. Part-III (final) examinat ion was withheld on the ground that the petitioner had already exhausted, by the year 2007, three consecutive chances, which were made available to him for pass ing the B.A. Part-II examination, and, hence, the petitioner could not have appe ared and passed his B.A. Part-II examination in the year 2008. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent University, whereby the petiti oner’s result has been kept withheld, the petitioner has come to this Court with the present writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent University to decla re his result of the third year (Part-III final) examination. 5. Resisting the present writ petition, the respondent University, as menti oned above, has contended, inter alia, that the petitioner has already exhausted , by the year 2007, three consecutive chances of passing the B.A. Part-II examin ation and, hence, the petitioner could not have been allowed to appear nor could he have passed the B.A. Part-II examination in 2008. It is the correctness of the respondent University’s decision, which has fallen for determination in the present writ petition. 6. In order to decide the question, which has arisen, one has to take into account Regulation 12 of the ’Regulation for B.A. T.D.C. 1+1+1 Pattern (2003-20 04)’ (hereinafter referred to as the ’University Regulation’) of the respondent University. Regulation 12(a) lays down that if a candidate fails to pass or pre sent himself/herself in not more than one subject, including the Major subject i n the Part-I examination, he/she may be allowed to sit for the arrear subject at the next Par-I examination held by the University. Thus, Regulation 12(a) show s that there is no difference between a candidate, who fails to pass, and a cand idate, who fails to appear in an examination. A candidate has to necessarily, t herefore, not only appear in the examination, which may be due for him, but must also pass in such examination. Regulation 12(h) of the University Regulation , which is also very relevant for the purpose of deciding the question, reads as under: 12(h) A candidate must pass the Part-I, Part-II, and Part-III examinations with in three years of completion of Part-III course. In each part maximum of three chances each will be available for a candidate subject to the conditions laid do wn above. 7. A careful reading of Regulation 12(h) makes is abundantly clear that a s tudent of three years degree course (TDC) would receive three chances to pass ea ch of the three examinations (i.e., Part-I, Part-II and Part-III) subject to the condition that the candidate has to pass all the three examinations (i.e., Part -I, Part-II and Part-III) within three years of completion of his Part-III cours e. 8. What Regulation 12 clearly shows is that for the purpose of clearing eve ry part of the three years degree course (TDC), a candidate will get three chanc es, but if he/she fails to pass, or does not appear in three chances, which may be made available to him/her, he/she would not be allowed any fourth chance. 9. In the present case, the petitioner was, admittedly, in the second part of his three years degree course in 2004-2005. His first examination in Part-II fell due in the year 2005; but the petitioner did not appear in his Part-II exa mination held in the year 2005. The petitioner, thus, exhausted his first chanc e for passing the Part-II examination. The petitioner, thereafter, got two more chances for passing his Part-II examination, the second chance being in the yea r 2006 and the third chance being in the year 2007. Though the petitioner appea red in the Part-II examination in the year 2006 and, then, once again, in the ye ar 2007, he could not pass. Thus, all the 3 (three) chances, which the petition er was entitled to receive, in terms of Regulation 12(h), had been received by t he petitioner. 10. Situated thus, it is clear that the petitioner could not have appeared i n B.A. Part-II examination held in the year 2008, for, his appearance in the B.A . Part-II examination, in the year 2008, was his fourth appearance; whereas, he was, in terms of Regulation 12(h), to be allowed only three chances to pass his B.A. Part-II examination. 11. The respondent University, thus, acted against the Regulation 12(h) in a llowing the petitioner to appear and/or pass in Part-II examination in the year 2008. However, this mistake was realized by the respondent University and, as t he petitioner ought not to have been allowed to appear and/or pass in the Part-I II examination, 2008, the respondent University did not declare the result of th e petitioner for his Part-III examination. One argument, which has not been rai sed, but one could have, perhaps, raised, is that the respondent University, hav ing passed the petitioner, in B.A. Part-II examination, could not have, subseque ntly, taken the plea that the petitioner ought not to have been allowed to appea r in the B.A. Part-II examination in the year 2008. However, suffice it to poin t out, in this regard, that against law, there is no estoppel. Logically, ther efore, when the Regulations of the respondent University did not empower the res pondent University to allow the petitioner to appear in B.A. Part-II examination in the year 2008, the fact that the petitioner had been allowed to appear in B. A. Part-II examination, held in the year 2008, and had obtained qualifying marks , was immaterial and has to be treated as a ground non est in law. Thus, the p lea of estoppel, even if raised, could not have been sustained. 12. What emerges from the above discussion is that the action of the respond ent University in not declaring the petitioner’s result cannot be said to be con trary to the respondent University’s regulations and cannot, therefore, be inter fered with. 13. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition fa ils and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.