Page 200 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

382 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

13 relates to “G” card holder. However, in the impugned Notification, the Trichy
Customs Authorities have not only imposed a condition to pass written examina-
tion but also oral examination. The petitioner had passed his written examina-
tion. He did not qualify in the oral examination. Conducting an oral examination
is beyond the scope of the authorities. The writ petition has been filed to quash
the said conducting of oral examination.
7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in
which it has been stated that neither the writ petitioner nor any other person had
approached the office for clarification regarding oral examination. It was stated
that based on the Public Notice issued in this regard, 41 eligible candidates ap-
peared for the written examination on 4-4-2019 and the results were declared on
9-4-2019. Out of 41 candidates who appeared for the written examination, 22
candidates passed in the written examination. The petitioner also passed in the
written examination. Oral examination was conducted on 30-4-2019. The result of
the oral examination was declared on 6-5-2019. Only 2 candidates had passed.
8. It is clear that the respondent authorities have conducted the exami-
nation not with a view to upgrade the licence holder, but with a view to reject the
upgradation from “H” to “G”. The object of any examination is to ensure that the
qualified candidate is promoted to the next post. If an examination is conducted
with the object to reject candidates, then the examination itself has to be struck
down. In this case, the respondent had no right to conduct any oral examination.
It is not provided in the Rules. The Rules stipulate that written examination alone
must be conducted. Other State authorities have conducted only written exami-
nation and they have not called upon the qualified candidates to again appear
for an oral examination. The reasons are obvious. During oral examination, an
element of bias can always takes place. To eliminate such bias, it has been con-
sistently held that the marks allotted for oral examination should be less than
25% of the total marks.
9. In the present case, for the written examination, the maximum mark
was 100 and the qualifying mark was 50 and separately, for oral examination 100
marks were allotted as a maximum and the qualifying mark was given as 50. It is
not known what is the nature of oral examination, which was conducted and
how the candidates were assessed. Those details are absent in the counter-
affidavit. Except merely stating that only two candidates passed in the oral exam-
ination, no other specific details have been given in the counter-affidavit. The
counter-affidavit has to be rejected. The conducting of the examination on 30-1-
2019 and the Public Notice No. 1 of 2019, wherein both the written examination
and the oral examination were stipulated, has to be struck down and accordingly
struck down. A direction is issued to the respondent, insofar as the petitioner is
concerned, since he has passed the written examination, to appoint him as “G”
card licence holder on or before 31-3-2020, if he is otherwise eligible. According-
ly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscella-
neous Petitions are closed.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  200