Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Jasti Chelameswar, Arun Chandra Upadhyay, JJ.
Monmi Sarma – Appellants
Vs.
Gauhati University and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On : 17.02.2009
The legal right for the remedy sought cannot depend upon a precedent with factual similarities and a decision inconsistent with the law applicable to the petitioner.
Headnote:
Regulation 15 - LLB Examination - The court dismissed the appeal of a petitioner seeking another opportunity to clear the arrear paper in her final LLB examination, as she had already exhausted the maximum number of chances permitted under Regulation 15 of the Gauhati University. The court emphasized that the legal right for the remedy sought cannot depend upon a precedent with factual similarities and a decision inconsistent with the law applicable to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought another opportunity to clear the arrear paper in her final LLB examination, citing her ailment as a reason for her poor performance. The university had rejected her request based on Regulation 15, which allowed a maximum of four chances in each part of the LLB examinations within six years from the date of the first examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the petitioner had already exhausted the maximum number of chances permitted under Regulation 15 and that her legal right for the remedy sought cannot depend upon a precedent with factual similarities and a decision inconsistent with the law applicable to her.
Issues: The issue before the court was whether the petitioner should be afforded another opportunity to clear the arrear paper in her final LLB examination, despite having exhausted the maximum number of chances permitted under Regulation 15.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the legal right for the remedy sought cannot depend upon a precedent with factual similarities and a decision inconsistent with the law applicable to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
Jasti Chelameswar, J.
1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 19.12.2008 in WP(C) No. 5378/08 the unsuccessful petitioner therein filed the present appeal.
2. The facts of the ease, as set out by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal, are as follows:
...the petitioner had taken admission in the three years LLB. Degree Course of the Gauhati University ('the University') in the year 2002-03. The first LLB. Preliminary Examination of the petitioner was due in the year 2003 which she cleared on the first attempt. She also passed the LLB. Intermediate Examination in the year 2004. Thereafter, in spite of her constant endeavors to pass the LLB. Final Examination which she duly took in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 (twice), she could not clear all the subjects. She appeared in the said examination last held in the month of December, 2007. At that time she was suffering from spondylosis. According to the petitioner, her ailment had a felling affect on her performance. She is before this Court for being afforded another opportunity to clear the arrear paper in her final LLB examination, which she could, not yet pass. Her representation making the same request has been rejected by the authorities of the University.
3. By the judgment under appeal the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.
4. The Gauhati University, respondent No. 1 herein, made Regulations dealing with the various aspects of the legal education by the University or by the Colleges affiliated to the University. The relevant is Regulation 15 which reads as follows:
15. A candidate shall be required to clear his/her LLB degree within six years from the date of his/her first due examination in LLB., Preliminary, provided that a student shall be allowed to appear in not more than four chances in each part of the LLB Examinations.
5. Undisputedly the appellant/writ petitioner joined the three year LLB course in the year 2002-03 and her first Preliminary examination in December, 2002. The issue before the court is regarding the final year LLB examination. The appellant/writ petitioner attempted for the said examination in the month of January, 2005 and failed in two papers. She attempted to clear the papers again in January 2006 but this time was successful in clearing only one paper. Again she appeared for the said paper in the month of March 2007 and December 2007 but could not clear the paper. It can be seen from the above extracted Regulation 15 that the upper limit permissible under the Regulation of the University for any candidate for securing the LLB. Degree is six years from the date of the first examination in the LLB course, which admittedly in the case of the appellant/writ petitioner was held in the month of December 2002. Apart from the said period the regulation stipulates that a candidate is permitted only a maximum four chances in each one of the LLB examinations.
6. By a communication dated 16.12.2008 the appellant/writ petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 that her case cannot be considered as she have already availed all the chances contemplated under Regulation 15. The fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had availed all the chances contemplated under Regulation 15 is not disputed by the appellant. All that the appellant/writ petitioner is asking for a 5th chance on the ground that some other candidates were permitted to avail such a 5th chance in view of certain orders of this Court in WA No. 56/2007 and WP(C) No. 5124/2007 and, therefore, prays that the same benefit be given to her also.
7. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal rejected the case of the appellant/writ petitioner and we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. We also do not propose to examine the judgments in the above mentioned writ appeal and the writ petition but we presume, for the purpose of the present case, that the facts as stated by the appellant/writ petitioner are accurate and by virtue of the orders o
