WP(C) 5137/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The facts project a pitiful state of affairs for a student who has been devotedl y pursuing the LL.B.Course under the Gauhati University as a student of Nowgaon Law College at Nowgaon. She is before this Court in a distressful condition se eking equitable intervention of this Court. I have heard Mr Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Chak raborty , learned counsel for the Gauhati University. The facts in brief leading to the institution of the instant proceeding have tobe recorded at the out set. The petitioner had taken admission in the LL .B. Course for the session 2000-2001 in the Nowgaon Law College, Nagaon (hereaf ter referred to as the ’College’). As per the New Regulation and Syllabus for LL.B. Course with effect from 2000 (hereafter for short referred to as the ’Reg ulation’) of the Gauhati University she is required to obtain the degree withi n five years from the date of her first due examination in the LL.B. Preliminary course. The petitioner made her first endeavour to clear the LL.B. Preliminary Examination ,2001 as so due ,but was unsuccessful. She could pass the said exa mination only in the year 2003. She could clear her Ll.B. Intermediate Examinati on in the year 2004. In the meantime, her LL.B .Final Examination had become du e for the first time in the year 2003. As she was still grappling with her preli minary examination, she could not avail the chance to appear in the LL.B. Final Examination in that year. After clearing the Preliminary Examination , the peti tioner continued in her strivings to clear the final examination. In that proce ss , though she appeared in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, she could not pass in all the papers. Her fourth chance as permissible under Regulation 15 nomenclat ured as ’special’ was due tobe availed in the LL.B. Final Examination, 2007 to b e held from 29.12.2007. The petitioner at that time was in her family way and with the developments at tendant thereon, she was gradually waning in her physical fitness. Unfortunat ely, the date of examination of the only paper which she was supposed to clear got postponed to 21.1.2008. In view of the intervening complications with her p regnancy , she had tobe admitted in a nursing home and eventually had to undergo an abortive process resulting in evacuation of the foetus. The petitioner in a devastated mental state was discharged on 10.1.2008 from the nursing home. Det ermined ,however to avail her last chance to clear the course, she took the ex amination on 21.1.2008, but to add to her woes , was unsuccessful. The petition er thus has been left shattered and anguished. Situated thus, she is before thi s Court seeking succour. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the above factual background has entre ated that having regard to the relentless efforts made by her to complete the course, in the agonizing facts and circumstances , she may be afforded one more opportunity to clear the only paper left in the final examination. While conten ding so, Mr Chamuah has conceded that going by the letter of the Regulation, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. He, however, has insis ted that in the exceptional fact situation, justice ought to be tempered with mercy. Mr Chakraborty in turn, has urged that the factual backdrop narrated in the petition though unfortunate , having regard to the rigour of the Regulat ion, the prayer made by the petitioner is untenable. The pleaded averments and the arguments advanced have received the due c onsideration of this Court. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the petitioner h as availed all the four chances available under the Regulation to clear the fina l LL.B. examination. It is, however, significant to notice that the petition er in the face of her repeated failures in her attempts to clear the course and obtain the decree inspite of her other family commitments, did not loose her f ocus. The developments intervening between the date of the final examination ori ginally fixed and the one on which she eventually appeared were unforeseen ov er which she had no control. The facts and circumstances do not as such discl ose any willful or deliberate omission or slackness on the part of the petitione r so as to infer any indifference, apathy or lackadaisical disposition vis a v is the final examination. The very fact that she had appeared in the examinatio n held on 21.1.2008 demonstrates her resolve and equanimity of mind. . In the ac companying facts and circumstances , this Court is of the unhesitant opinion tha t the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to clear the only back paper in the Final examination even by way of an exception to the stipulated rigidity o f the Regulation. This Court being a forum of equity is persuaded to hold that the pr esent factual premises demand that the petitioner’s plea ought to be treated w ith pragmatism and empathy This petition is therefore allowed. The respondent University would per mit the petitioner to take the paper which she is still to clear in the final examination of LL.B. Course in the next schedule. It is made clear that this d irection has been issued having regard to the extra ordinary fact situation of the instant case and is not by way of any relaxation of the prescriptions of th e Regulation. Further, this ought not to be taken as a precedent as well. No cos ts.