NISHAMONI SAIKIA Vs. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before proceeding further, I may straightaway record the undisputed facts on record. The petitioner was admitted to LL.B course for the 2005-06 session at Dispur Law College, Dispur under the University of Gauhati in the year 2005. She appeared in the Preliminary Examination of LL.B. Examination in March, 2007, but could not clear three papers. She was, however, allowed to clear the arrear subjects, which she did and cleared in the month of December, 2007. She was in the meantime allowed to move to LL.B. Intermediate Examination which was held in November, 2007, but she did not pass. She again made another attempt for the Intermediate Examination in November, 2008, which she did not make it as she did not clear 3 papers. She appeared again for clearing the three back papers of the Intermediate Examination in October, 2009 and managed to clear all these papers this time. She then appeared for the LL.B. Final Examination in January, 2009, but could not make it as she got back papers in three papers. She again appeared in the LL.B. Final Examination in December, 2009 to clear the three back papers, but managed to clear only two papers. She accordingly found her name among the list of unsuccessful candidates. She again appeared in the LL.B. Final Examination in the month of December, 2010 to clear the back paper, but did not pass. She then made another attempt to clear the back paper in the Final Examination held in the month of December, 2011, but again could not make it. Thereafter, she filled up the application form for the Final LL.B. Examination to be held in September, 2012 to clear the back paper, but was not allowed to do so as she was not longer eligible to sit for the ensuing examination on the ground that her last chance for the said examination, as per the LL.B. regulation, had already expired in the last Examination held in the month of December, 2011. Aggrieved by this, she filed a representation to the Controller of Examination on 27.7.2012 for allowing her to sit for the said Examination. The Controller responded to her representation by his letter dated 14.8.2012 reiterating that she was not eligible for the Examination on the ground already stated earlier. The notification dated 13.9.2002 issued by the Gauhati University is in the following terms:

(2.) Assailing the decision of the respondent-University, the submission of Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, runs along the following line, namely, the respondent-University in terms of the notification issued by it on 13-9-2002 stipulated that a candidate must complete his/her LL.B. degree within six years from the date of his/her due LL.B. Examination. The petitioner took admission for 2005-06 and her first LL.B. Preliminary Examination was due in the year 2006, but the Examination came to be held only in the year 2007 and, as such, her six years would be completed by 2013 and even if the limit of six years is calculated from 2006 also, her six years would be completed by 2012. As her examination was held in 2007, the petitioner cannot be cannot faulted with by the respondent-University. The impugned letter dated 14.8.2012 is, therefore, arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel further contends that the facts in this writ petition and those in WP(C) No. 5546/2012 and WP(C) No. 5548/2012 are on all fours, and similar reliefs can, therefore, be granted in this writ petition as well.

(3.) Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the respondent-University, submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner has completely misread the notification dated 27.9.2007 and has in process come to the wrong conclusion that the petitioner has not exhausted her chance to complete the final examination of the LL.B. According to the learned standing counsel, the impugned decision of the respondent-University is completely in accord with the latest amendment of the Regulation: so considered, the petitioner has already exhausted all her chances to appear in the LL.B. Examination. He, therefore, submits that this writ petition is bereft of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.