1993 (7) TMI 95 - SC - Customs

Whether the applicant must first clear the written test to qualify for the oral test as per Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 made by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under sub-section (2) of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962? Held that - A fervent appeal was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that having regard to the fact that all the petitioners have passed the written examination and that some of them had only one opportunity to appear at the oral examination since they passed the written examination at the third attempt, one further chance to appear at the oral examination should be accorded to them as was done in the past under the circular dated May 19, 1988. That would be a matter on which the concerned authorities would have to take a decision if the circumstances so permit but it would not be proper for this Court to issue a mandate once it is found as a fact that the petitioners had the requisite opportunities under the regulations for clearing the written as well as oral test. We may add by way of caution and to avoid any litigation in future if the authorities decide to give one further opportunity to the petitioners to clear the oral test it will be by way of grace only and will not confer any right whatsoever on the petitioners and if the authorities insist upon any undertaking to be filed by the candidates permitted to avail of that extra chance in the present proceedings that they will accept the result as final and conclusive and will not make it a ground for further litigation, they will be well within their rights to so insist. If such undertakings are filed in the present proceedings, the Registry will accept the same. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Regulations 8 & 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.
2. Constitutional validity of Regulations 8 & 9.
3. Number of chances to pass the written and oral examinations.
4. Validity of the oral test and the allocation of marks.
5. Allegations of arbitrariness and favoritism in the oral examination process.
6. Request for an additional chance to clear the oral examination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Regulations 8 & 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984:
The petitioners challenged the interpretation of Regulations 8 and 9, which govern the issuance of temporary and regular licenses to Customs House Agents. Regulation 8 allows for a temporary license for one year, extendable by six months to one year if the applicant needs a third chance to pass the examination. Regulation 9 mandates that the holder of a temporary license must qualify in both written and oral examinations within three chances over two years. The Supreme Court clarified that the regulations provide sufficient opportunities to pass the examinations, with up to four chances for the written test and three for the oral test, ensuring no undue advantage to candidates failing the written test at the first attempt.

2. Constitutional Validity of Regulations 8 & 9:
The petitioners questioned the constitutional validity of Regulations 8 & 9, arguing they give arbitrary powers to authorities. The Court referred to previous decisions in Ajay Hasia and Ashok Kumar Yadav, which dealt with high marks for oral tests being potentially arbitrary. However, the Court upheld the regulations, emphasizing that the oral test is crucial for assessing practical knowledge and performance, which are essential for Customs House Agents handling valuable goods and large sums of money.

3. Number of Chances to Pass the Written and Oral Examinations:
The petitioners argued that they did not get sufficient chances to pass the oral examination. The Court noted that the regulations provide for three chances within two years, with a possible extension for a third chance. The petitioners had availed themselves of these opportunities but failed to qualify. The Court found no merit in the argument that the regulations did not afford sufficient chances.

4. Validity of the Oral Test and the Allocation of Marks:
The petitioners contended that the allocation of 100 marks for the oral test (50% of the total) was excessive and allowed for arbitrariness. The Court highlighted the importance of the oral test in assessing practical skills, temperament, and the ability to handle responsibilities at a customs station. The Court found the allocation justified, given the nature of the duties of Customs House Agents, and distinguished this case from Ajay Hasia and Ashok Kumar Yadav, where the context was different.

5. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Favoritism in the Oral Examination Process:
The petitioners alleged that the oral test could be misused to favor certain candidates. The Court acknowledged that while such tests are subjective, proper record-keeping and transparent evaluation can mitigate the risk of bias. The Court found no evidence of favoritism or bias in the present case and dismissed the allegations as unsubstantiated.

6. Request for an Additional Chance to Clear the Oral Examination:
The petitioners requested an additional chance to clear the oral examination, citing a past circular that granted such a concession. The Court noted that this was a one-time relaxation and could not be extended indefinitely. The Court left it to the authorities to decide if an additional chance could be granted but emphasized that it would be a matter of grace, not a right, and any such concession should not lead to further litigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity and interpretation of the regulations. The Court found that the petitioners had been given sufficient opportunities to qualify and that the oral test and its marking scheme were justified. The Court also addressed the allegations of arbitrariness and favoritism, finding no merit in them. The petitioners' request for an additional chance was left to the discretion of the authorities, with a caution against further litigation.

← Previous Next →