JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. We have heard Mr. SC Biswas, learned Counsel, for the appellant, and Mr. LP Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent University. 2. The facts, giving rise to the present appeal, as available on record, may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) The appellant took admission, in three years L.L.B. course, for the Session 1998-1999. Though he appeared, in the L.L.B. (Preliminary) Examination, in the year 1999, he could not clear three subjects and, eventually, cleared the said three subjects as late as in the year 2002. The appellant, then, appeared in the L.L.B. (Intermediate) Examination, in the year 2003, but failed and came to pass the Intermediate Examination in the year 2004. The appellant appeared in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination in the year 2003, but failed. He, again, appeared in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination in the year 2004, which was held in January, 2005, but could not clear his third and fifth papers. Though the appellant appeared, even in January, 2006, to clear his third and fifth paper, he failed. The appellant, thereafter, made a representation to the respondent University, on 10.1.2007, praying for, inter alia, a special chance to be given to him to appear in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, scheduled to be held on 17.3.2007, so as to enable him to clear has arrears in third and fifth papers. (ii) Alleging that the Vice-Chancellor, Gauhati University, has not considered his said representation, the appellant filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No, 518/2007. This writ petition was disposed of, on 17.2.2007, directing the Vice-Chancellor to consider and dispose of the appellant's application, dated 10.1.2007, whereby the applicant had, as indicated above, requested to allow him to appear in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, scheduled to be held on 17.3.2007, as a special case. The appellant, then, came with another writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 892/2007, alleging to the effect that his said representation had not been disposed of pending his second writ petition, the appellant also filed a miscellaneous application, which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 828/2007, seeking requisite directions, in the interim, to the respondent University, to allow him to take part, in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, commencing from 17.3.2007. Case No. 828/2007, seeking requisite directions, in the interim, to the respondent University, to allow him to take part, in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, commencing from 17.3.2007. By order, dated 17.3.2007, the learned Single Judge passed an order directing the Vice-Chancellor to dispose of the representation during the course of the day. Aggrieved by the fact that the learned Single Judge had not granted any interim order, as had been sought for by the appellant, the appellant preferred this appeal. 3. On 15.3.2007, while admitting the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order directing that the appellant be allowed to appear in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, scheduled to be held on 17.3.2007, making it, however, clear that such participation, in the examination, by he appellant would not entitle him to get his result declared unless a specific order, in this regard, is passed by this Court upon consideration of the material of the case at the time of final disposal of the appeal. The appeal has accordingly come up for hearing. 4. While considering the present appeal, it is necessary that Regulation 15 of the respondent University be read. We, therefore, extract hereinbelow Regulation 15: A candidate shall be required to clear his/her L.L.B. degree within six years from the date of his/her first due examination in L.L.B. Preliminary, provided that a student shall be allowed to appear in not more than four chances in each part of the L.L.B. examinations. 5. The appellant, admittedly, took admission, in the L.L.B. course, for the Session 1998-1999 and he appeared, for the first time, in L.L.B. (Preliminary) Examination, in the year 1999, but could not clear his arrears, in three papers, until 2002. The appellant, then, appeared in his L.L.B. (Intermediate) Examination, in the year 2003, but could pass his intermediate examination only in 2004. The appellant, thereafter, appeared in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, according to what he himself claims, in the year 2003, but failed. He did appear, in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, in the year 2004, held in the year 2005, but could not clear his third and fifth papers. The appellant, then, appeared in L.L.B. (Final) Examination in January, 2006, but could not clear his third and fifth papers. He did appear, in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, in the year 2004, held in the year 2005, but could not clear his third and fifth papers. The appellant, then, appeared in L.L.B. (Final) Examination in January, 2006, but could not clear his third and fifth papers. Thus, the appellant's first examination was in the year 1999 and, in the light of Regulation 15, he ought to have cleared all his examinations, including the final examination, within a period of six years from the date, when his examination first became due in L.L.B. (Preliminary) course. Considered in this light, the appellant ought to have cleared his L.L.B. (Final) Examination by the year 2005. However, the appellant appeared in L.L.B. final examination in 2003, 2005 and 2006, but could not pass. In such circumstances, it is clear that though the appellant ought to have passed his L.L.B. Examination within six years, he has not been able to clear the same during the said period of six years. In fact, when this appeal was taken up for hearing, it could not be disputed, on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant had exhausted the period of six years duration within which a candidate has to obtain degree in law from the date of commencement of his first due examination in L.L.B. (Preliminary) course. 6. Relying, however, on the decision, in Shri Krishnan v. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 , it has been submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that rightly or wrongly, when the appellant has been allowed to appear in the L.L.B. (Final) Examination, held on 17.3.2007, his result ought to have been declared. 7. While considering the decision, in Shri Krishnan (supra), it needs to be noted that the case of Shri Krishnan (supra) was a case, wherein the University had allowed the appellant to appear in the examination, but refused to announce the result of the examination. It was in such a situation, coupled with the other facts, that the Apex Court had held that once the appellant had been allowed to take part in the examination, rightly or wrongly, the appellant's result of the examination could not have been refused to be declared. 8. It was in such a situation, coupled with the other facts, that the Apex Court had held that once the appellant had been allowed to take part in the examination, rightly or wrongly, the appellant's result of the examination could not have been refused to be declared. 8. Apart from the fact that Regulation 15 does not permit the appellant, as a matter of right, or even as a matter of generosity, on the part of the University or otherwise, to appear in L.L.B. Examination beyond the period of six years as aforementioned, it is of paramount importance to note that in the present case, the appellant was allowed to appear, in the final examination, not at the instance of the respondent University, but on the basis of the interim directions passed by this Court. The relevant portion of the interim directions are, therefore, reproduced hereinbelow: After hearing the learned Counsel and upon perusal of the materials available before us and also upon giving our anxious consideration to the issue involved, it is hereby directed that the appellant be allowed to participate in the L.L.B. final examination scheduled to be held on 17.3.2007 and 26.3.2007 so far the papers of the appellant are concerned. However, it is made clear that such participation would not entitle the appellant to get his result declared unless a specific order to this effect is passed by this Court upon consideration of the merit of the case at the time of final disposal. 9. From the interim directions, reproduced above, it becomes clear that the appellant knew even on 15.3.2007, when he had been allowed to appear in the examination aforementioned, by this Court that the result of his examination would not be declared unless the Court gives a specific direction, in this regard, on consideration of the merit of the case. 9. From the interim directions, reproduced above, it becomes clear that the appellant knew even on 15.3.2007, when he had been allowed to appear in the examination aforementioned, by this Court that the result of his examination would not be declared unless the Court gives a specific direction, in this regard, on consideration of the merit of the case. Having, thus, clearly understood that he had no indefeasible right to get the result of his examination declared and that the respondent University had been directed by the Court to let the appellant appear, in the said examination, subject to the condition that the result of his examination would not be declared by the respondent University until the Court, on examination of his case, holds that independent of the fact that he had been allowed to conditionally appear in the said examination, the appellant had otherwise also, a right to appear in the said examination. Independent of, therefore, the fact that the appellant had, as a result of the said interim directions of this Court, appeared in the said examination, the appellant was required to establish, in the present case, that he had right, under the Regulation, to avail one more chance. As the appellant has completely failed to show that he had any right to appear in the said examination, the fact that the appellant had appeared, in the said examination, on the interim directions having been passed by this Court, does not entitle the appellant, to seek, nor can it empower this Court to direct, that the respondent University shall declare the result of the appellant's said examination. 10. Though Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant, has also placed reliance on Archana Goswami v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) GLT 188, where a reference to the decision, in Shri Krishnan (supra), has been made, suffice it to point out that the facts of the case, in Archana Goswami (supra), were quite different from the one we have at hand, particularly, when the appellant has been allowed by the respondent University to appear, in the said examination, by a conditional interim direction passed by this Court, the condition being that the result would be declared only if the appellant is, otherwise, found entitled and eligible under the law to appear in the said examination. 11. 11. To sum up, as we find that the appellant has not been able to pass his L.L.B. (Final) Examination within the period as mentioned in Regulation 15, the conditional interim directions, passed by this Court, on 15,3.2007, which allowed the appellant to appear in the examination, did not vest, in the appellant, any right to get the result of his examination declared and the respondent University was within the ambits of its powers, when it had refused permission to the appellant to appear, in the L.L.B. Examination, which had commenced on 17.3.2007. 12. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed