Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 549 (GAU)

Tez Uddin Laskar v. Gauhati University

2008-07-30

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the chance availed by him in the final LL.B. Examination held from 29.12.2007, as permitted by this Court, is within the sanctionable limit of the number of attempts prescribed by the extant regulations of the Gauhati University ('the University', in this regard and further prays for a direction for declaration of his result therein. 2.1 have heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University. 3. Briefly stated, the pleaded case of the petitioner is that after his graduation, he took admission in. the three years LL.B. Course in the University Law College, Guwahati University during the session 2000-2001. He passed the preliminary examination in the year 2001 in all subjects. In the intermediate examination held in the month of February, 2002 he could not clear three papers. In two attempts, thereafter, he passed the remaining papers eventually in the year 2005. He having been allowed to pursue the final year course in the meantime, his examination was therefore due in the year 2003. Though he sat in the examination in the said year, he failed. In the year 2004, he could not appear in the LL.B. Final Examination because of his illness. The examination for the year scheduled for the year 2005 was postponed till January, 2006 and though the petitioner made another endeavour, he failed again. The petitioner in his relentless effort to pass the course, submitted the examination form to make another attempt in the examination proposed to be held on 9.3.2007. However, on being refused the admit card, he approached this Court and in terms of an interim order passed, he could appear in the final examination. In the results declared on 6.12.2007 it transpired that he had failed in two papers, but the marks secured by him in practical subjects had not been added, resulting in deficiency in percentage. He, though entitled to another chance to appear in the LL.B. final examination, being refused that opportunity, has approached this Court. 4. By order dated 19.12.2007, this Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties allowed the petitioner to appear in the ensuing LL.B. final examination scheduled to commence from 29.12.2007. The petitioner accordingly completed the necessary formalities and took the examination. He now prays for declaration of his results. 5. 4. By order dated 19.12.2007, this Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties allowed the petitioner to appear in the ensuing LL.B. final examination scheduled to commence from 29.12.2007. The petitioner accordingly completed the necessary formalities and took the examination. He now prays for declaration of his results. 5. The University in its counter has pleaded that the petitioner, computed from the year of his admission to the course, was due to appear in the LL.B. Final Examination in the year 2003 and he having exhausted all his chances as permissible under the Regulations in the year 2005, he was not allowed to appear in the said examination thereafter. Though in compliance of the order dated 8.3.2007 of this Court he was permitted to sit in the said examination, he failed. According to the University, the petitioner is not entitled to appear in the LL.B. final examination after 2006 and to endorse this stand Regulations 14 and 15 of "New Regulations & Syllabus for LL.B. Courses with effect from 2000" have been relied upon. 6. Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued with reference to a Notification dated 27.9.2007 issued by the Controller of Examinations, Gauhati University that a candidate pursuing LL.B. Course is thereby entitled to avail one special chance (4th chance) in any of the three examinations (Preliminary, Intermediate or Final) under the aforementioned Regulations provided he/she completes the course within 6 (six) years from the date of his/her due examination in his/her first LL.B. preliminary examination. The learned Counsel has maintained that the petitioner having passed the LL.B. Preliminary Examination in the year 2001, the outer limit of six years would end in the year 2007 and in appearing in the examination on 29.12.2007 he was within the four chances available under the Notification and as such he is entitled to have his results declared. In addition to contending that denial of results in the facts and circumstances of the case would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner, who comes from a very humble family, Mr. Mazumdar has urged that the same would also be opposed to the letter and spirit of the said Notification. To buttress his arguments Mr. Mazumdar has placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 13.12.2007 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6019/2007 (Sonowar Hussain v. The Gauhati University and Ors.). 7. Mr. Mazumdar has urged that the same would also be opposed to the letter and spirit of the said Notification. To buttress his arguments Mr. Mazumdar has placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 13.12.2007 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6019/2007 (Sonowar Hussain v. The Gauhati University and Ors.). 7. Mr. S. Chakravarty, as against this has argued that as the period of six, years vis-à-vis the petitioner's term would expire in the year 2006 in terms of the Regulations as well as the Notification dated 27.9.2007 he is not entitled to appear in the LL.B. Final Examination thereafter. Though in compliance of the order of this Court he has been permitted to it in such examination held from 29.12.2007, he cannot claim any right in law to have his results declared as in the facts and circumstances of the present case the same would be in contravention of the Regulations. 8. The rival pleadings and the arguments advanced have received the due consideration of this Court. Indubitably, the petitioner has passed the Preliminary Examination in the year 2001. The Notification dated 27.09.2007 permits "One Special Chance (4th)" to the candidates pursuing LL.B. Course under the University in any two of the three LL.B. examinations provided he completes the course "within six years from the date of his/her first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary." In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having taken admission in the year 2000, his first due examination in LL.B. Preliminary was in the year 2001. Incidentally, he passed the said examination in the same year. A plain reading of the aforementioned notification goes to show that the petitioner is required to complete his course within six years from that year i.e. 2001. In the estimate of this Court, having regard to the language applied, the period of six years in the case in hand would culminate in the year 2007. The plea on behalf of the University to peg it to the year 2006, does not appeal to this Court. Firstly, the language does not endorse that construction and secondly, even assuming that there is some scope for that inference, an interpretation, having regard to the object of the notification, favourable to the candidates ought to be adopted. The petitioner, though due, did not appear in the LL.B. Final Examination in the year 2004 due to his illness. Firstly, the language does not endorse that construction and secondly, even assuming that there is some scope for that inference, an interpretation, having regard to the object of the notification, favourable to the candidates ought to be adopted. The petitioner, though due, did not appear in the LL.B. Final Examination in the year 2004 due to his illness. He renewed his endeavour to clear the said examination the year 2006, but was unsuccessful. The examination for the year 2005 was held in 2006. Eventually, on the strength of the interim order of this Court he again appeared in LL.B. Final Examination held from 9.2.2007. His results in the said examination eventually were declared in compliance of the order dated 27.11.2007 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1150 of 2007. He being not fully successful, sought to avail another chance, which, according to him was available under the notification. 9. The petitioner having not appeared in the LL.B. Final Examination in the year 2004, he cannot said to have availed that chance in terms of the decision of this Court in Chow Pinkkham Munglang v. Gauhati University and Ors. 2007 (4) GLT 878. He therefore, for all intents and purpose has availed the fourth chance by his last attempt as permissible under the aforementioned notification within the period of six years from the date of his first examination in LL.B. (Preliminary) expiring in the year 2007. The petitioner having been permitted by this Court to sit in the LL.B. Final Examination, which commenced from 29.12.2007, in the opinion of this Court, in view of the above determination, is entitled to have his results declared by the University. The petitioner, as the facts of this case demonstrate, is within the ambit of the application of the notification dated 27.9.2007 and is, therefore, entitled to his results. 10. In the above view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The University would declare the results of the petitioner of his final LL.B. examination 2007 in which he did appear as permitted by the order dated 29.12.2007 of this Court. Depending on his results in this examination, the University would declare his status vis-à-vis the LL.B. course. As the petitioner waits an expectation, this should be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs. Petition allowed.