Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) :- The five petitioners in the present writ petition are students of five years LL.B. Course (New Regulations) of the University of Calcutta. They appeared in Part-III examination of the course in the year 2001. All of them could not clear Part-III examination. Under Regulation 10(B) of the relevant regulations, they were to appear in a supplementary examination for clearing the back papers. Under Regulation 10(C), they could be permitted to appear in Part-IV examination along with the supplementary examination relating to Part-III. Such permission was granted to them, and in the year 2002 all of them appeared in the supplementary examination relating to Part-III as well as at the part-IV regular examination. They were successful in the Part-IV examination, but to their misfortune they could not pass the supplementary examination relating to Part-III. However, before publication of the results, they were allowed to attend the classes for Part - V. On publication of the results of supplementary examination, petitioners made a representation to the University for allowing them to appear at the Part-V regular examination and one more supplementary examination opportunity for clearing the Part-III. Under the relevant Regulations, they were required to appear in all the papers of part-III, as the Regulations do not provide for second supplementary chance. As the University did not grant permission to the petitioners, they moved this court by filing a writ petition (W.P. 6261 (W) of 2003). By an order April 29, 2003 this writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Vice-Chancellor to take a decision. The Vice- Chancellor took the decision on May 8, 2003. He did not allow the petitioners a second supplementary chance to appear at Part-III examination along with the chance to appear at the regular examination of Part-V. Being aggrieved by such decision of the Vice- Chancellor the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The case of the petitioners is based on the contention that the Vice- Chancellor has power to relax the relevant Regulations so as to grant a second supplementary chance to an unsuccessful candidate of any part of the course; and the Vice- Chancellor, while granting such second supplementary chance, can grant permission to such candidate to appear at the regular examination of the next higher part.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioners contends that the Vice- Chancellor while giving his decision dated May 8, 2003 has declined to exercise such power of relaxation without considering the case that in similar situation he had exercised the power of relaxation. His contention is that the discretion vested in the Vice - Chancellor to relax the Regulations has been exercised by him without taking into consideration the fact that the refusal to exercise the same in favour of the petitioners would result in hostile discrimination because of his own decision taken while considering the cases of similarly situated students for the previous years' examination.;