WP(C) 5832/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner, a student of the Three Years LL.B. Course of the Gauhati University (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the University’), is before this Court seeking judicial intervention so as to facilitate his appearance in t he ensuing final examination. I have heard Mr R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr LP Sa rma, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition have to be summa rized. The petitioner after having graduated himself took admission in the afor ementioned course in the academic session of 2002-03. He made his first endeavou r to clear the LL.B. Preliminary Examination in January, 2006 but was unsuccessf ul. In his next attempt he, however, cleared the said examination which was held in the month of March, 2007. Though he took the examination in the intermediate course held in the month of January, 2007, he could not clear the said examinat ion. In his next attempt in November, 2007 he, however, passed the intermediate examination. In his pursuit to clear the final examination the petitioner appear ed in January, 2008 and also in December, 2009. He having been declined to take this examination again in the year 2010 inspite of repeated requests being made by him to that effect, he is before this Court. A combined reading of Clause-15 of the New Regulations & Syllabus for LL .B. Course read with the Notification dated 27.9.2007 discloses without any amb iguity that a candidate pursuing the aforementioned course is entitled in all to avail four chances in each part thereof and has to complete the course within a period of six years. As the outer limit of six years has since elapsed vis-à-vi s the petitioner, he cannot be permitted to appear in the ensuing final examinat ion of the University. The decision of the concerned authority thereof declining his request, therefore, cannot be faulted with in terms of the aforementioned R egulations as well as the Notification relatable thereto. A Division Bench of th is Court in Monmi Sarma -vs- Gauhati University & Ors., (2009) 5 GLR 144 has aut horitatively taken the said view as well. In the above premise, there is no merit in the instant petition which ac cordingly is dismissed. No costs.