Statutory examination scheme: temporary licence-holders had three chances only, and a circular could not create a continuing right.

Regulations 8 and 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 were read as a composite scheme granting a temporary licence-holder three chances only in the written-cum-oral examination within the prescribed period. The scheme did not create four separate examinations; the timing of oral appearances depended on when the written test was cleared. A circular and public notice issued in 1988 were treated as a limited, one-time relaxation for pending cases where candidates had passed the written examination but failed the oral stage. Because the regulations were never amended, the relaxation could not become a continuing right or enlarge the statutory examination scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Regulations 8 and 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 entitled a temporary licence-holder to only three chances in the written-cum-oral examination during the subsistence of the temporary licence; (ii) Whether the circular dated 19 May 1988 and the public notice issued pursuant to it created a continuing right to two additional oral chances for all temporary licence-holders.

Issue (i): Whether Regulations 8 and 9 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 entitled a temporary licence-holder to only three chances in the written-cum-oral examination during the subsistence of the temporary licence?

Analysis: The Regulations were read together as a composite scheme. Regulation 8 contemplated an initial temporary licence period and extension only to enable the holder to avail of the third chance. Regulation 9 expressly provided that the holder of a temporary licence could appear in the examination at the earliest opportunity and avail of a maximum of three chances within two years. The examination was treated as a single written-cum-oral process, and the number of oral appearances depended on when the candidate cleared the written test. The requirement was not four examinations, but at least three opportunities to sit for the composite examination within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The Regulations guaranteed three chances only, not four; this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the circular dated 19 May 1988 and the public notice issued pursuant to it created a continuing right to two additional oral chances for all temporary licence-holders?

Analysis: The circular and the public notice were construed as a limited, one-time relaxation for pending cases where the candidate had passed the written examination within two years but had failed in the oral examination. Subsequent departmental communications confirmed that the relaxation was confined to those pending cases and was not meant for fresh cases. Since Regulation 9 was never amended, the circular could not permanently alter the statutory scheme or confer an enduring right beyond the Regulations. The petitioners had already been afforded the chances contemplated by the Regulations and could not claim further oral examinations as of right.

Conclusion: The circular did not confer any continuing entitlement to additional oral chances; this contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed because the statutory examination scheme required only three chances within the prescribed period, and the later departmental relaxation was a limited one-time measure that did not enlarge the rights of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A circular or administrative notice cannot permanently extend or amend a statutory examination scheme framed by regulations; where the regulations provide only a fixed number of chances, a temporary one-time relaxation cannot be claimed as a continuing right.

---