Regulatory transition and equal treatment in licensing: delayed oral examination could not defeat certification for similarly placed candidates.

Candidates who had completed the written stage of the Customs House Agents licensing process under the old regime could not be denied certification merely because the oral examination was held after the revised regulations came into force. The decisive factor was that the selection process had substantially progressed under the earlier regulatory framework, and the later postponement of the oral test was fortuitous rather than legally material. The Court also relied on parity, noting that similarly placed candidates in another Commissionerate had been granted certificates despite result processing occurring after the new regulations. On that basis, the petitioners were entitled to issuance of the certificate under Regulation 8.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to the certificate under Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 despite the oral examination being held after the revised regulations came into force.

Analysis: The written examinations were completed under the old regulatory regime, and the oral examinations were only postponed to dates falling after the new regulations commenced. The governing consideration was the stage at which the selection process had substantially been conducted, not the fortuitous delay in holding the oral test. The Court also noted that other candidates similarly placed, whose written and oral examinations had been taken under the old regulations but whose results were processed after the new regulations, had been granted certificates in another Commissionerate. In these circumstances, denying the petitioners the same benefit would amount to unequal treatment of similarly situated candidates.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to issuance of the certificate under Regulation 8 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.

---