Examination chance under licensing rules counts only when a real opportunity to appear is actually available.

Under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, a examination chance is counted only when the candidate is actually given a real opportunity to appear, and mere notification of a date does not amount to availing that chance. An examination fixed for 28-12-2001 that never commenced because question papers were not received could not be treated as a valid chance. The two-year period for availing chances did not bar appellate relief where the applicant had been wrongly denied a permissible opportunity, and the appellate remedy had to retain practical effect. On this reasoning, the petitioner remained entitled to the third chance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the examination said to have been held on 29-12-2000 could be counted as one of the three chances under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984; (ii) whether the examination fixed for 28-12-2001, which did not in fact commence because question papers were not received, could be treated as a valid examination opportunity; and (iii) whether the appellate authority could refuse relief merely because the two-year period prescribed for availing the chances had expired.

Issue (i): Whether the examination said to have been held on 29-12-2000 could be counted as one of the three chances under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis: The distinction drawn in the Regulations is between enabling an applicant to avail a chance and the applicant actually availing that chance. Mere notice of an examination does not, by itself, establish that the candidate used the opportunity. If the candidate does not appear, the chance is not treated as having been availed merely because the examination was notified.

Conclusion: The 29-12-2000 examination could not be counted against the petitioner, as he had not availed that chance.

Issue (ii): Whether the examination fixed for 28-12-2001, which did not in fact commence because question papers were not received, could be treated as a valid examination opportunity.

Analysis: An examination that never actually commenced cannot be regarded as a real opportunity to appear. A mere fixation of date, without the examination being conducted, does not amount to holding the examination within the meaning of the Regulations.

Conclusion: The 28-12-2001 event could not be treated as an examination chance availed by the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellate authority could refuse relief merely because the two-year period prescribed for availing the chances had expired.

Analysis: The two-year limit governed the applicant's chances under the licensing regime and did not exhaust the appellate authority's power to grant effective relief. The appellate remedy cannot be rendered nugatory by treating expiry of time as an absolute bar where the applicant was wrongly denied one of the permissible chances. The provisions were read harmoniously so that the appeal retained practical efficacy.

Conclusion: The appellate authority was competent to grant relief notwithstanding expiry of the two-year period.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner had availed only two valid chances and remained entitled to the third chance, so the adverse orders were unsustainable and directions were issued to permit appearance in the ensuing examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the licensing regulations, a chance is counted only when the candidate is actually given and can use a real opportunity to appear in the examination, and the appellate remedy must be construed so as not to become ineffective merely because the prescribed time period has elapsed.

---