Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 725 (GAU)

Moushmi Roy v. Gauhati University & Ors.

2014-07-21

A.M.SAPRE, NISHITENDU CHAUDHURY

body2014
N. Chaudhury, J.:- 1. Judgment and order dated 10. 4. 2014 passed by the hon’ble Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5869 of 2012 dismissing the writ petition has been brought under challenge in the present writ appeal. 2. The petitioner, namely, Moushumi Roy appeared in BA Part-I examination in the year 2009 but she could not pass. She cleared BA Part-I examination in the year 2010 in her second attempt. She appeared in BA Part-II examination in the year 2010 at the same time, but having failed to qualify she appeared in the year 2011 again. In her second chance also she failed to clear the exam and so, sat in the said examination for the third time in the year 2012 and even thereafter, she could not pass BA Part-II examination. At the same time, she appeared in BA Part-Ill examination in the year 2011 but her result was kept withheld as she failed to clear BA Part- II examination. The petitioner wanted that a special chance be given to her so that she could clear BA Part-Ill examination but the prayer was declined by the Gauhati University. Under such circumstances, she approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5869 of 2012 praying for allowing her to sit in BA Part-II examination as a special chance. 3. By order dated 11.1.2013 this court permitted the petitioner to sit in the ensuing BA Part-II examination, however, directing that her result should not be declared without leave of the court. It is the case of the petitioner that she accordingly sat in BA Part-II examination again and its results arc yet to be declared. 4. By filing affidavit-in-opposition the Controller of Examinations has resisted the prayer of the petitioner. Regulation 12(h) of the Regulation for BA TDC (1 + 1 + 1) pattern 2003-2004 has been quoted in the affidavit-in-opposition which goes as below: “(h) A candidate must pass the Part-I, Part-II and Part-Ill examinations within three years of completion of Part-Ill course. In each part maximum of three chances each will be available for a candidate subject to the conditions laid down above. ” 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, the hon’ble Single Judge by judgment and order dated 10. 4. In each part maximum of three chances each will be available for a candidate subject to the conditions laid down above. ” 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, the hon’ble Single Judge by judgment and order dated 10. 4. 2014 dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner has exhausted all the 3 chances made available to her under norms of the University and therefore, the University has rightly disallowed her to sit in examination any further. Thus, on the basis of provisions of regulation 12(h) as referred to above, the writ petition was dismissed and the interim order passed earlier entitling the writ petitioner to sit in the examination was vacated. 6. We have heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University for the respondents. 7. It is apparent from the recital of Regulation 12(h) of the Regulation for BA TDC (1 + 1 + 1) that a candidate is entitled to get maximum of 3 chances in each part of the 3 year’s course. There is no challenge against the legality or validity of this Regulation. Once the Regulation stands, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to sit in the exam of any part of the 3 years degree course for more than 3 chances. Admittedly in the case in hand the petitioner has already exhausted all the 3 chances. This High Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot re-write the regulation of the University which the University has framed in its own wisdom. 8. The hon’ble Single Judge has considered the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality and there upon found that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference under the writ jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner has failed to make out any legally enforceable vested right of getting a special chance. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not feel that the appeal has merit and it is accordingly not admitted and is dismissed.