LexD.V. BAKSHI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B D.V. BAKSHI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. JULY 14, 1993 [AM. AHMADI ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.] Customs Act 1962-S.146(2)-Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984-Regulations 8 & 9--Regulations providing for 3 chances within 2 years for written, followed by oral, examination-Written examination C cleared in 2nd/3rd attempt-Number of chances to clear oral test consequeant- ly reduced-Whether there should be corresponding increase in number of opp01tunities to clear oral test-Held, Scheme of the Regulations afford 3 chances for passing the examination-Such increase in number of oppor- tunities to clear oral test will place premium on incompetency and inefficiency. D Customs Act/ 1962-S.146(2)-Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984-Regulation 9-50 per cent marks for oral examination, held justifie~Where oral test is a 11must'~ responsibility on examiners to maintain proper records-Marks preferably to be under heads considered relevant to evaluate candidates-lVhere oral test a must and marks reserved excessive, E even light, if dependable, proof in support of charge of bias may upset result-Arbitrariness--Constitution of India, Article 14. F The petitioners secured temporary licences to operate as Customs House Agents. As they failed to pass the examination as required by Regulations 8 & 9 of the Customs Hosue Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, the temporary licences were terminated and they were refused regular licences. The petitioners were required to clear the written examination, and thereafter the oral test, and secure 50 per cent marks in each. The G Regulations provided for examination to be conducted twice every year. It required that they pass in 3 chances within 2 years. The petitioners "contended that third chance for the oral test contemplated by the proviso to Regulation 8(1) would not be available to those who passed the written examination in the second or third attempt; and that the proviso should be so construed as to give them the chance. They also challenged the H allotment to 50 percent marks for the oral test as being excessive, allowing 200 D.V. BAKSHI v. U.O.l. 201 arbitrariness and nepotism. The High Court rejected the first contention and observed that the second contention was not seriously urged before it. Dismissing the petitions, this Court HELD : 1. It is clear on a plain reading of Regulations 8 and 9 that they offer more than three opportunties for passing the written test and at last three opportunities for passing the oral test even if it is assumed that the result of the first written test is announced after the first oral test. A B If a candidate does not appear or does not pass the written test at the first available opportunity, the number of opportunities to pass the oral test C would shrink depending on at which attempt he has cleared the written test. His inability to clear the written test at the earliest available oppor- tunity cannot operate to his advantage by a corresponding increase in the number of opportunities to clear the oral test. Such a construction of the scheme of the Regulations would result in placing premium on incom- D petency and inefficiency. (209-B-D] 2. The factors to be assessed at the interview relate to temperament, mangerial ability, communication ability, interpersonal skill, ~bility to interact with colleagues and officials, general awareness in regard to functional responsibilities and professional norms as well as norms of E behaviour, etc. Therefore, the area of the enquiry in regard to actual working is equally wide and important and there is justification for an oral test prescribing 100 marks with 50 percent as passing marks. This is so becanse the authorities have to assess the candidate's personality, his temperament and his capacity to interact with others concerned with the movement of highly valuable goods etc. (211-F-G] F Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1982] 1 SCR 320 and Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C. Shukla, (1993] 1SCC17, applied. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981] 2 SCR 79 and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State o/Haryana, [~98514SCC417, distinguished. G Licence to act as a Custom House Agent in a custom station requires special knowledge relating to the clearance of conveyance and goods through customs. While the written test may ascertain the candidate's knowledge in regard to the laws, both substantive and proce- dural, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.