AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is made basically for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the student/petitioner herein to allow him to sit in an examination following the Regulations of the Examination as below :"6 (A ). If a full time student does not pass Section A, B and C of his/her Master of Engineering Examination within the three semesters, he/she may continue afterwards to clear the backlog within a period of sixsemesters from the date of admission. 6 (b ). If a candidate registered as private candidate does not complete his/her Section A, B and C of Master of Engineering Examination within five semester, he/she may continue afterwards to clear backlog within a period of eight semesters from the date of first registration. 6 (c ). A candidate registered as regular/private candidate will not be admitted to the next Section Examination if he/she has a backlog of more than two subjects (theoretical/sessional) in the previous Section Examination (s ). However, the candidate shall be awarded credit for those subjects in which he/she has already passed. 6 (d ). A candidate is debarred to submit his thesis until he/she has passed in the term paper/project/laboratory sessionals including seminar at least one semester earlier. 6 (e ). A candidate failing in any subject (theoretical/sessional/thesis/viva) will have more chances to appear in subsequent examinations within the stipulated period outlined in Regulation 6 (a)/6 (b) and without contraventing Regulation 6 (d ). " ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in his case the petitioner is entitled to sit in the examination thrice in numbers. One of which is a chance when other two are additional chances. Out of two additional chances he sat once but failed in one subject but in another he was absentee. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has, further contended that a mercy petition or a demand of justice was made or a letter was written to the concerned Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, the Controller of Examination and the Head of the Department when from the endorsement in a copy letter dated 17th June, 1999, it appears that he was allowed to continue with the classes for which the examination is to be given on the forthcoming date. ( 4 ) IT appears from a document being the part and parcel of an interlocutory application which he wanted to move that the petitioner was permitted to attend classes on the said subject as a special consideration/case in anticipation (discussion in the DAC body of E. E. Deptt. ). ( 5 ) BUT the respondents have taken a plea by saying that the petitioner has lost two additional chances out of three by way of failure and another by treating his absence as failure. ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH the petitioner called upon the respondents to produce any Regulation as to whether there is any regulation to the extent that the absence will be counted as failure or not, the same has not been produced. On the other hand, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, relied upon the Regulation 6 (e) as above which speaks that a candidate failing in any subject (theoretical/sessional/thesis/viva) will have two more chances to appear in subsequent examinations within the stipulated period outlined in Regulation 6 (a)/6 (b) and without contravening the Regulation 6 (d ). ( 7 ) IT appears that the Regulation 6 (d) as above prescribed that a candidate is debarred to submit his thesis until he/she has passed in the term paper/project/laboratory sessionals including seminar at least one semester earlier. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted the said thesis. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, two clear pictures are coming forward before this Court. First is that whether the petitioner is debarred from sitting in the examination by construing absence as failure and the other is whether in spite of the acts of the part of the respondents one after another for favouring the petitioner whether a legitimate expectation arise in mind of the petitioner or not. I am sorry to say that I have got no answer as to the factual part is concerned. I am also sorry to say that although the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents took a plea that the absence of the candidate is to be regarded as failure being the part of the regulations, but I do not find any such part therein. I am also sorry to say that although the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents took a plea that the absence of the candidate is to be regarded as failure being the part of the regulations, but I do not find any such part therein. Moreover, I find that it is an admitted position that one of the candidate Smt. Arpita Hazra, in a similarly placed situation, has been allowed to sit in the examination taking into account her absence not as a failure. The learned Advocate for the respondents contended that illegality in favour of one cannot be regarded as right to other and then proceeded on the question of law. On this score, he cited a judgment in the case of Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 494 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1347 ) basically by saying that if it was not within the scope of the Rules then will not create a right to claim equality with others. On the other hand, such type of similarity and illegality cannot create enforceable right for the petitioner. ( 9 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents, has also relied upon another judgment in the case of Ashok Sharma v. Vice-Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital, reported in (1994) 1 ESC 233 (All) to establish his case that when failure of a student thrice in the same examination with the concerned University he cannot be issued the permit to appear in the Examination. He can only be able to make a mercy petition to the Vice-Chancellor which is to be decided expeditiously. ( 10 ) HE also cited a judgment in the case of A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1986) 2 SCC 667 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ), to establish that the University cannot be directed to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. ( 11 ) HE further cited a judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 401 : ( AIR 1993 SC 2412 ) to establish that the loose, ill-conceived sympathy, masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. ( 11 ) HE further cited a judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 401 : ( AIR 1993 SC 2412 ) to establish that the loose, ill-conceived sympathy, masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. ( 12 ) THEREAFTER, Mr. Banerjee cited a judgment in the case of S. Anbarasan v. University of Madras, reported in (1993) 1 ESC 207, to establish that calculation of shortage of marks cannot be regarded as a ground for allowing the student to appear in the examination. Possibly, this judgment was cited before me to follow the similar principle in this respect. Thereafter, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents, cited a judgment in the case of C. B. S. E. v. P. Sunil Kumar, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 377 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2235 ) to establish that the petitioner cannot be directed by the Court to sit in the examination based on misplaced sympathy. ( 13 ) HE further cited a judgment in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 5 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1205 ) to establish that when the Court considers that admission of a student was wrong, it should desist from passing orders permitting ineligible student to undertake Board and/or University examination as that amounts to abuse of the process and puts the Rule of Law to a mockery. Thereafter, he cited another judgment in the case of Principal, King George's Medical College, Lucknow, U. P. v. Dr. Ved Parkash Gupta, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 307 : ( AIR 1984 SC 186 ) which is also on the similar situation not to give any sympathy and not open to interfere by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of unsuccessful candidate, ignoring, relaxing or dispensing with the statutory rules and Government orders and giving direction for admission of a candidate of lower merits. ( 14 ) LASTLY, Mr. ( 14 ) LASTLY, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents, cited a decision in the case of M. I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, reported in (1999) AIR SCW 2619 : ( AIR 1999 SC 2468 ) to establish his case as follows :"judicial discretion in moulding the relief cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles. " ( 15 ) I fully appreciate the legal propositions. There is no occasion to see that these well settled principles of law will not be applicable in appropriate cases. But, as I find that the petitioner's case is not only backed by a strong (sic) made by the Institution itself otherwise there is occasion arose for the Institution to give the petitioner any grace as transpired from the record or relief towards another student as above. Accordingly, when I asked the parties what else will remain in respect of the writ petition in either way the order is passed both the parties said nothing will remain in respect of the writ petition. Therefore, I see no reason to keep the matter pending and dispose of accordingly. Therefore, the writ petition succeeds. ( 16 ) THE petitioner will be entitled to sit in the forthcoming examination but only for one chance as available in accordance with regulations. No order is passed as to costs. ( 17 ) LET the operative part of this order be given to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court ). Petition allowed.