Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010136092017 2025:GAU-AS:7900 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4573/2017 ANAMIKA DEKA D/O- SRI NARAPATI DEKA, R/O- RLY QTR NO. 78/B, EAST GOTANAGAR, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781011, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS GAUHATI UNIVERSITY and 3 ORS. REP. BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI- 14, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM 2:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-14 DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 3:THE ACADEMIC REGISTRAR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY JALUKBARI GUWAHATI-14 DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 4:THE UNIVERSITY LAW COLLEGE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL JALUKBARI GUWAHATI- 14 DIST- KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS U DAS, MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR. M P SARMA,MR.M S Page No.# 2/8 SARMA,MR.N DEKA,MR.U K NAIR Advocate for the Respondent : MR.R THAKURIAR-4, SC, G U,MR.L P SHARMA(R-4), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16.06.2025 Heard Mr. M.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The grievance, being sought to be addressed by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that she took admission in 5 years LL.B. course for the session 2008-09 at Gauhati University Law College, Gauhati University in the year 2008. Thereafter, in the year 2012, the Gauhati University had issued a Notification, being No. GU/M/ AR/Standing Committee/2012/21, dated 18.04.2012, wherein in column No. ‘d’ , it has been stated that the candidates be allowed to clear as many number of back papers within 8 years in respect of 5 years Law Courses and within 5 years in respect of 3 years Law Courses, and the said amendment came into force with immediate effect. 2.1. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she appeared in all the examinations held in each year, but she could not clear Paper 8.2, amongst five papers and 10th semester as she failed in Paper 10.1, amongst five papers at B.A. LL.B. (Honours) 8th Semester Examination, 2016 and at B.A. LL.B. (Honours) 10th Semester Examination, 2016 held in the month of June, 2016. The petitioner filled up the application form and the respondent University had received the admissible fees for the examination for Paper 8.2 and Paper 10.1, Page No.# 3/8 to be held in the month of June, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the University for admit card, but she was denied the same on the ground that she had already completed 8 years. Thereafter, she had filed one representation on 23.06.2017, before the Vice Chancellor of the Gauhati University to allow her to sit in the examination; otherwise she will have to repeat the course for another 5 years. 2.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that one Ms. Ashamoni Deka of 2007- 08 batch was allowed to sit for the session 2015-16, despite the fact that she completed her 8 years during the year 2014-15, and a similar case was filed before this Court, being WP(C) No. 4535/2016, wherein the petitioner therein enrolled herself in the 5 years B.A. LL.B. (Honours) course in J.B. Law College under Gauhati University on 23.06.2008, and she appeared in the 1st semester in the said course in 2009 and she had to clear her LL.B. (Honours) degree course within 9 years of January, 2009, which would be up to January, 2018. In the said writ petition, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to observe that “what transpires is that Regulation 14(c) provides that a candidate has to clear his/her LL.B. (Honours) degree within 9 years from the date of his/her first due LL.B. examination”, and thereafter, this Court was pleased to allow the petitioner therein to appear in two papers as and when the examination was to be held next. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since similar relief was sought for and was granted to the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4535/2016, the present petition may be allowed on the same ground, and that though the petition was filed in the year 2017 and in the meantime, several years elapsed, yet the petitioner is willing to pursue this matter and also willing to appear in the examination and as the earlier counsel of the petitioner had not taken Page No.# 4/8 interest in the petition, the same remained pending for quite longtime for no fault of the petitioner. And still the petitioner is willing to pursue and complete the course and as such, last opportunity may be granted to the petitioner considering it as a special case. 4. Per contra, Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the respondents, has opposed the petition. Mr. Phukan has pointed out that within the period of 8 years, the petitioner has failed to clear her back papers and the period of 8 years completed in the year 2016, and as such, she is not entitled to appear in the examination for the year 2017, which is beyond the prescribed rules and notification in respect of 5 years LL.B. (Honours) course of the respondent University. Further, Mr. Phukan has pointed out that the earlier order was passed on 27.10.2016, but the present petition remained unattended for more than 8 years, and now she has forfeited her right to appear in the examination. Referring to the decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 4535/2016, so relied upon by Mr. Sharma, Mr. Phukan further submits that the aforesaid decision of this Court cannot be read as precedent as no law was discussed in the same and though there was reference to Regulation 14(c) yet, it has not been discussed in detail and the said decision is per-incurium and also a sub-silentio. And under such circumstances, Mr. Phukan has contended to dismiss this petition. In support of his submission, Mr. Phukan has referred following two decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) Municipal Corpn. of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 101; (ii) Purbanchal Cables & Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. Assam SEB, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 462. Page No.# 5/8 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed record, and also perused the relevant rule i.e. the Regulation 14(c) and a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, dated 27.10.2016, in WP(C) No. 4535/2016. 6. The basic facts here in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner took admission in LL.B. 5 year’s course in the session 2008-09 and in view of the notification, dated 18.04.2012, the petitioner has to complete her 5 years LL.B. course within a period of 8 years. Since she took admission in the session 2008- 09, the 8 years came to an end in the year 2016. However, the petitioner could not clear her back papers in Paper 8.2 and Paper 10.1. 7. It is to be noted here that in the order dated 27.10.2016, this Court had observed as under: “Faced with such a situation, Court is of the view that the two situations visualized under Regulation 14(c) may have to be reconciled and the view that emerges out of such reconciliation appears to be in favour of the candidate. Moreover, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it may not be wrong to accept a view which is more favourable to the candidate.” 7.1. And, thereafter, this Court was pleased to allow the petitioner of the said petition, to appear in the examination. 8. Though Mr. Phukan, the learned counsel for the respondent, has made a scathing attack upon the correctness of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 27.10.2016, in WP(C) No. 4535/2016, being per-incurium and also as sub-silentio, yet, the facts remains that the said decision was happily complied with by the respondent authority. Notably, in the aforesaid Page No.# 6/8 case, it was held that when two situations can be visualized under Regulation 14(c), it would not be wrong to adopt the view that appears to be in favour of the candidate and thereafter, the petitioner of said case was allowed to appear in the examination. This Court is not at all concerned as to whether the same can be read as precedent or not. We are concerned with the fact when an equitable benefit is extended to a candidate by allowing her to appear in the examination while she could not complete the course within stipulated period. 9. If a similarly situated student can be granted the benefit of appearing in examination when she had failed to complete the course within stipulated period, then similar benefit can be extended to other similarly situated student also, as because the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asking for the relief, which is by and large, an equitable relief. Else, it would amount to discrimination. 10. It is however a fact that after filing of the writ petition, about 8 years elapsed. But, it appears that she had approached the court when she was denied permission to appear in the examination. She cannot be made responsible for the pendency of the petition for longtime while the earlier counsel had not taken so much interest as submitted by Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. I have carefully gone through the decisions in Gurnam Kaur (supra) and in Purbanchal Cables & Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra) referred by Mr. Phukan, the learned counsel for the respondents. There is no quarrel at the Bar about the proposition of law laid down in the said cases. But, in view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the view that the same would not advance the argument of the respondents. Page No.# 7/8 12. In this context, it is to be noted here that the university-student relationship is a complex, hybrid one which, it seems, is better regulated partly by contract and partly under the rubric of public law. In certain areas of the relationship, especially those involved with the payment of fees or with students misled by the university as to the academic requirements of a degree, contractual remedies in the form of damages seem most suitable. Contract can also be viewed both as a source of university authority and as the basis of the student's claim to natural justice (by means of the much overworked "implied term"). Even where a university seeks expressly to exclude natural justice, this can be prevented by holding the term to be "contrary to public policy" 13. In earliest days, the doctrine of in loco parentis i.e. parents were taken to have delegated their parental rights to the school authorities. Viewed from this stand point, this Court feels that - the respondent authority, being the mentor of the students, has to treat them with respect and with fairness and to promote equity and inclusivity. It has to ensure that the students receive support and opportunities for their professional development keeping in mind that its relation with the students is governed by the doctrine of in loco parentis, though, nowadays, it is regarded as contractual and although universities acquire their jurisdiction over students by contract, they are created by statute and so should be amenable to writ jurisdiction. 14. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, and also considering the fact that similar relief was sought for which was granted to the petitioner of WP(C) No. 4535/2016, this Court is of the view that being similarly situated, the present petitioner is also entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, it is provided that the respondent University shall permit the Page No.# 8/8 petitioner to appear in her examination in Paper 8.2 and Paper 10.1, as a special case. 15. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant