Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 3072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Keshav Kumar Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Directorate General of Performance Management & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2143 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2023
Mr. Ghanshyam Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with Ms.Charu Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Ms. Priyanka Das and Ms. Prerna Dhall, Advocates, for UOI.
The principle that citizens should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and expect to be given the benefit of a declaration of law without the need to take their grievances to court.
Headnote:
Customs Brokers License - Qualification Criteria - Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations - 2013 - Regulation 6
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner cleared the written examination and the first round of oral examination but was denied the Customs Brokers License due to a change in the minimum marks required to clear the oral examination.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Respondents could not change the qualifying criteria of the oral examination mid-way after the recruitment had begun, and directed the issuance of the Customs Brokers License to the Petitioner based on the previous qualifying criteria.
Issues: The issue was whether the Respondents could deny the Customs Brokers License to the Petitioner based on a change in the minimum marks required to clear the oral examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that when a citizen obtains a declaration of law in his favor, others in similar circumstances should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and expect to be given the benefit of the declaration without the need to take their grievances to court.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Respondents were directed to issue the Customs Brokers License to the Petitioner in light of the previous qualifying criteria.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Respondents to declare him as a qualified candidate as per Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations - 2013 and to issue the Customs Brokers License to him.
2. Facts of the case reveal that Respondent No.1issued a notice dated 11.04.2017, inviting applications for the Written Examination for issuance of license to successful candidates to act as Custom Brokers under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations - 2013. As per the public notice, the examination was scheduled to be held on 19.01.2018. As per the notice, the examination process was to be conducted in two stages - written examination and oral examination. It is stated that to qualify the written examination a candidate was to score a minimum of 50 marks and the oral examination was to be cleared in two attempts by securing minimum 50 passing marks. It is stated that the Petitioner herein applied for the said examination and cleared the written examination by securing 61.5 marks in it. It is stated that on 29.06.2018 the Petitioner herein received a letter calling him to appear in the oral examination which was to be held on 12.07.2018. It is stated that the Petitioner could not clear the said oral examination and as per the prevailing rules he applied for second attempt of oral examination. It is stated that vide letter dated 30.04.2019 he was called to appear for second attempt of oral examination which was to be held on 25.05.2019. It is stated that in the said oral examination the Petitioner got 51 marks and, therefore, as per the procedure, the Petitioner was entitled to get the Customs Brokers License. However, the Petitioner was not granted the license on the ground that the rules had been changed mid-way and the minimum marks required to clear the oral examination has been increased to 60.
3. Material on record discloses that certain candidates, who scored between 50-60 marks in the oral examination, approached this Court by filing a batch of Writ Petitions being, W.P.(C) 12777/2019, W.P.(C) 12865/2019 & W.P.(C) 13132/2019. This Court vide Order dated 18.02.2022 allowed the said Writ Petitions by holding that the Respondents could not have changed the rules of examination mid-way and could not have increased the minimum marks from 50 to 60 which were required to pass the oral examination. This Court by the said Order directed the Respondents to issue Customs Brokers License to the Petitioners therein. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"19. That apart, it is not the case of the respondents that before the petitioners appeared in the oral examination held on May 23/25, 2019 the petitioners were put to notice that their consideration for oral examination would be on the basis of 60 marks. In the absence of such a notice to the petitioners the criteria could not have been changed. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that petitioners have not achieved 50 marks in the oral examination held on May 23, 2019/May 25, 2019, hence, the petitioners having qualified the written examination on the basis of 50 marks, they have to be assessed at 50 marks in the oral examination, otherwise, it shall have the effect of changing the criteria midway, which is impermissible."
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it was the duty of the Respondents to extend the same benefit, as has been given to the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 12777/2019, W.P.(C) 12865/2019 & W.P.(C) 13132/2019, to the Petitioner herein and the Respondents could not have restricted the benefits only to those persons who had approached this Court and had secured a declaration of law in their favour.
5. Challenging the rejection of his candidature, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
6. Heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. Admittedly, the Petitioner herein cleared t
