2020 (9) TMI 1120 - HC - Customs

Customs Brokers Licensing - Validity of N/N. 41/2018-Cus. (N.T.), dated 14-5-2018 - Examination with respect to screening and selection of candidates from H Card to G Card - permission to hold G Card license - HELD THAT - It is clear that the respondent authorities have conducted the examination not with a view to upgrade the licence holder, but with a view to reject the upgradation from H to G . The object of any examination is to ensure that the qualified candidate is promoted to the next post. If an examination is conducted with the object to reject candidates, then the examination itself has to be struck down. In this case, the respondent had no right to conduct any oral examination. It is not provided in the Rules. The Rules stipulate that written examination alone must be conducted. Except merely stating that only two candidates passed in the oral examination, no other specific details have been given in the counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit has to be rejected - The conducting of the examination on 30-1-2019 and the Public Notice No. 1 of 2019, wherein both the written examination and the oral examination were stipulated, has to be struck down and accordingly struck down. A direction is issued to the respondent, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, since he has passed the written examination, to appoint him as G card licence holder on or before 31-3-2020, if he is otherwise eligible. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the notification regarding examination for upgrading from "H" Card to "G" Card.
2. Legality of conducting oral examination in addition to written examination for upgrading.
3. Compliance with Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
4. Validity of examination process and criteria for selection.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the notification issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs regarding the examination process for upgrading from "H" Card to "G" Card. The petitioner, a Customs Broker holding an "H" Card license, sought permission to obtain a "G" Card license based on the qualifications and regulations specified.

2. The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the selection process, specifically focusing on the requirement of passing both a written and oral examination for upgrading to a "G" Card. The petitioner contended that conducting an oral examination was beyond the scope of the authorities and not in line with the regulations.

3. The Court examined the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, which defined "G" and "H" card holders based on passing specific examinations. The petitioner's argument emphasized that other port authorities across the country followed regulations stipulating only a written examination for upgrading, without the inclusion of an oral examination.

4. The judgment criticized the authorities for conducting the examination with the intent to reject candidates rather than promote qualified individuals to the next level. The Court emphasized that an examination should aim to upgrade qualified candidates and not serve as a means to reject them. It was noted that conducting an oral examination introduced bias and was not in line with established practices.

5. The Court scrutinized the examination process, noting the lack of specific details in the counter-affidavit regarding the nature of the oral examination and assessment criteria. The judgment deemed the conducting of the oral examination as unjust and directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner as a "G" Card license holder by a specified date, given the petitioner's successful completion of the written examination.

6. Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notification requiring an oral examination, and instructed the respondent to appoint the petitioner as a "G" Card license holder in compliance with the regulations. The judgment emphasized the importance of fair examination practices and adherence to established rules in the selection process.