2007 (8) TMI 120 - HC - Customs

CHA License Petitioners has been unfairly treated by denying her the opportunity to appear in three oral examinations She had passed written examination in accordance with the Regulations Respondent is directed to call the petitioner for an oral examination on the next three occasions

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 regarding the frequency of written and oral examinations.
2. Failure of the Respondents to conduct oral examinations as per the Regulations.
3. Denial of multiple chances for the Petitioner to appear in oral examinations.
4. Justification by Respondents for not conducting examinations as required by the Regulations.
5. Unfair treatment of the Petitioner by not allowing her to appear in multiple oral examinations.
6. Relief sought by the Petitioner regarding the conduct of future oral examinations.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Regulation 8(1) and Regulation 8(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, which mandate the Director General of Inspection to conduct written and oral examinations twice a year for applicants. The Petitioner cleared the written examination in 2005 and was called for an oral examination in 2006, which she failed to succeed.

2. Despite the Regulations requiring the oral examination to be held twice a year, the Petitioner was only called once, leading to her loss of multiple opportunities to obtain a Custom House Agents license. The Respondents admitted their failure to conduct examinations as per the Regulations due to administrative reasons, depriving the Petitioner of her rightful chances.

3. The court noted that the Petitioner had been unfairly treated by being denied the opportunity to appear in multiple oral examinations, as required by the Regulations. The failure to provide adequate chances for the Petitioner to clear the oral examination was deemed prejudicial and unjust.

4. The Respondents attempted to justify their failure to conduct examinations as required by stating that the examination process was proposed to be shifted to another authority, which was rejected. However, the court found this justification untenable, emphasizing the importance of complying with the Regulations to prevent applicants like the Petitioner from being disadvantaged.

5. In response to the Petitioner's plea for relief, the court directed the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to appear in the next three oral examinations to compensate for the missed opportunities. The court ordered the Petitioner to be called for the upcoming oral examination in 2007 and the subsequent two examinations if needed, ensuring she receives fair consideration as per the Regulations.

6. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition in favor of the Petitioner, granting her the right to participate in future oral examinations as per the court's directions, thereby rectifying the injustice caused by the Respondents' failure to adhere to the examination schedule outlined in the Regulations.