Court invalidates oral exam for 'G' Card license, emphasizing bias risks in licensing process. Petitioner to be appointed within four weeks.

The Court allowed the writ petition challenging the legality of the oral examination for the 'G' Card license issuance. It held that the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018 prescribed only a written examination, not an oral one. The Court emphasized that oral examinations could introduce bias and should not be part of the licensing process. Consequently, the Court struck down the oral examination requirement and the Public Notice mandating both written and oral exams. The petitioner was directed to be appointed as a 'G' card license holder within four weeks based on passing the written examination, resolving the dispute without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of Public Notice No.48/2017 and request for 'G' Card License issuance.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Customs Broker holding an 'H' Card license, sought a 'G' Card license based on the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018. The Regulations define 'G' and 'H' card holders, with 'G' card holders having the authority to sign documents upon passing a written examination. The petitioner contended that in other port authorities, selection from 'H' to 'G' card holder was based solely on a written examination, not an oral one. The petitioner had passed the written examination but failed the oral one, leading to the filing of a writ petition to challenge the oral examination's legitimacy.

The respondent argued that the oral examination was conducted to assess knowledge adequacy, following a pattern similar to the F-Card examination until the implementation of CBLR 2018, which prescribed only a written examination. The respondent had not conducted any 'G' card examination under the CBLR 2018. The respondent's stance was that since the petitioner did not qualify the 'G' card examination, he was not considered for the 'G' Card issuance.

The Court observed that the purpose of an examination should be to promote qualified candidates, not to reject them. It noted that conducting an oral examination was beyond the Rules' scope, which mandated only a written examination. The Court highlighted that oral examinations could introduce bias and emphasized that marks for oral assessments should be less than 25% of the total. The lack of specific details in the counter affidavit regarding the oral examination led the Court to reject it. Consequently, the Court struck down the oral examination and the Public Notice stipulating both written and oral examinations. A direction was issued to appoint the petitioner as a 'G' card license holder within four weeks, given his successful completion of the written examination.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed, resolving the dispute over the 'G' Card license issuance.

---