WP(C) 2358/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S . Chokraborty, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati University. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to declare the result of his BA Part-III examination in whi ch he has appeared in 2006. The petitioner took admission in BA three years degree course (I+I+I) in the year 2003. He appeared in Part-I examination in the year 2004 and cleared t he same. However, he could not clear the Part-II examination held in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In the meantime, he also appeared in Part-III examination in 2006. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the outstanding Part-II examina tion in the year 2008 and this time he could clear the said examination. Howeve r, the University authority has not declared the BA Part-III, 2006 examination r esult on the ground that the petitioner could not have been given the 4th chance to appear in the Part-II examination. As noted above, the petitioner was allowe d to appear in the Part-III examination held in the year 2006. As per Rule 12 of the Regulation of BA, TDC (I+I+I) pattern of examinati on, a candidate is entitled to three chances in each Part and the chances will h ave to be availed of within three years of completion of the Part-III examinatio n. In the instant case, the petitioner completed BA Part-III examination in 2006. He was also allowed to appear in the Part-II examination in the year 2008 , although the same was his 4th chance. Thus, the University authority waived an d/or relaxed the provision of Rule 12 of the aforesaid Regulation by allowing th e petitioner to appear in the Part-II examination for the 4th time. Not only tha t the University authority also declared the results of the said examination an d as per the result, the petitioner has cleared the Part-II examination. In view of the above, it will be too harsh if the result of Part-III exa mination is not declared in which the petitioner has appeared in the year 2006 w ithin the prescribed limit of three years from the date of admission which he ha d taken in the year 2003. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 1075 (Samantan Gauda vs. Berh umpur University), in which the Apex Court applying the test of estoppel, upheld the examination undertaken by the petitioner involved therein. As in the instan t case, in the said case also the University authority refused to declare the re sult of the particular examination on the ground that the petitioner was ineligi ble to be admitted to Law Course. However, the Apex Court having found that the petitioner was admitted in the said course and pursued his studies for two years and also that the University authority granted him the admit card for Pre-Law a nd Intermediate Law examinations and also allowed the petitioner to appear in t he said examination, held that the rule of estoppel will debar the University au thority from prejudicially affecting the interest of the petitioner. In the instant case also the petitioner was allowed to appear in BA Part -II examination in the year 2008 and the result thereof was also declared. In th e said examination, the petitioner has passed out. So far as Part-III examinatio n is concerned, the petitioner appeared in the said examination in 2006 within the stipulated period of time, i.e. within three years of admission to TDC cours e. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent Un iversity is directed to declare the result of Part -III examination, 2006 perta ining to the petitioner without any delay. Writ petition is disposed of.