Court upholds limitation to six attempts for Customs Broker License, deeming reduction not arbitrary.

The court dismissed the petition challenging Clause 6 of Regulation 6 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, which limited the number of attempts for obtaining a Customs Broker License to six. The court held that the petitioner did not have a vested right to seven attempts under the previous regulations and found the reduction in attempts from seven to six not arbitrary. The court emphasized that the petitioner had not challenged the regulations earlier and filed the petition speculatively. The court upheld the validity of the regulation and confirmed the authority of the respondents to modify the rules for the licensing examination.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Clause 6 of Regulation 6 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) limiting attempts to clear the Customs Broker License examination.
2. Comparison between CBLR, 2013 and CBLR, 2018 regarding the number of attempts allowed.
3. Alleged arbitrariness in the reduction of attempts from seven to six.
4. Petitioner's claim of vested rights under the previous regulations (CBLR, 2013).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Clause 6 of Regulation 6 of CBLR, 2018:
The petitioner challenged Clause 6 of Regulation 6 of CBLR, 2018, which limits an eligible applicant to six attempts to clear the prescribed written and oral examination for obtaining the Customs Broker License. The petitioner sought to quash this clause and requested permission for a seventh attempt.

2. Comparison between CBLR, 2013 and CBLR, 2018:
Under CBLR, 2013, an applicant was allowed a maximum period of seven years from the date of the original application to pass both the written and oral examinations, effectively allowing up to seven attempts if the applicant chose to appear annually. In contrast, CBLR, 2018 restricts the total number of attempts to six, without a specific time frame, providing more flexibility as the six attempts do not need to be completed within a set period.

3. Alleged Arbitrariness in Reduction of Attempts:
The petitioner argued that the reduction in the number of attempts under CBLR, 2018 is arbitrary and that it wasted the valuable time spent preparing for the examination over the past six years. The petitioner claimed that the reduction from seven to six attempts under the new regulations was unfair.

4. Petitioner's Claim of Vested Rights:
The petitioner contended that he had a vested right to seven attempts under CBLR, 2013, and that this right could not be taken away by the new regulations. The petitioner referenced a previous decision in Manish Rishishwar v. Union of India & Anr., 2020 SCC Online Del 381, where similar claims were made. In that case, the court held that no vested right accrued to the petitioner under CBLR, 2013, as the petitioner did not clear the examinations while the 2013 regulations were in force. The court stated that the respondents are free to introduce fresh regulations and that the principle of vested rights does not apply in this context.

Judgment:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments. It emphasized that the petitioner had appeared for four written examinations from 2019 to 2022 under CBLR, 2018, without challenging the regulations at that time. The court also noted that the petition was filed on the eve of the application deadline for the next examination, indicating a speculative attempt to gain an additional chance.

The court reiterated the decision in Manish Rishishwar, stating that the petitioner did not have a vested right to seven attempts and that the regulations could be modified as needed. The court concluded that the reduction in the number of attempts was not arbitrary or violative of constitutional rights.

Conclusion:
The petition and the pending application were dismissed, upholding the validity of Clause 6 of Regulation 6 of CBLR, 2018, and confirming that the petitioner did not have a vested right to seven attempts under the previous regulations. The court affirmed the respondents' authority to modify the regulations and restrict the number of attempts for clearing the Customs Broker License examination.

---