Rajiv Kumar Rishi & Ors. vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customscentral Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, who appeared for the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination conducted on March 18, 2025, under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, filed a writ petition. Their grievance was that the examination paper deviated from the pattern of the preceding two decades, with a disproportionately high number of questions from Allied Acts. They also alleged that certain questions were erroneous or ambiguous, and went beyond reasonable expectations. The petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to issue them licenses as custom brokers or to relax the six-attempt limit stipulated in the regulations.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any specific provision in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, that prescribed a numerical ceiling for questions from major or allied acts. The Court noted that Regulation 6(7) explicitly contemplates questions from Allied Acts without specifying a ratio. Therefore, the mere fact that a higher proportion of questions were from Allied Acts did not render the paper defective. The Court also held that it would not engage in a question-by-question academic adjudication of the examination paper, as judicial review in competitive examinations is limited to examining the decision-making process for mala fides, arbitrariness, or patent illegality. The petitioners failed to demonstrate glaring errors in the key answers or substantive legal propositions tested. The Court emphasized that the manner of question setting is within the domain of experts, and mere confusion or a different interpretation by candidates does not invalidate the expert body's decision. The difficulty of the paper or a lower success rate did not constitute grounds for interference or for issuing licenses or increasing attempts. The Court found no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226.

Key Issues

1. Whether the departure from the historical pattern of question distribution in the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination conducted on March 18, 2025, renders the examination defective, thereby warranting judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that for the past twenty years, the examination paper predominantly focused on 'major acts' like the Customs Act, 1962, and the IGST Act, 2017, with only 5-10% of questions from Allied Acts. In the 2025 examination, however, 65 out of 150 questions were from Allied Acts, which they argued was a significant deviation and made the paper defective. They also claimed certain questions were erroneous or ambiguous. They relied on the established pattern of previous examinations. Respondent's arguments: The respondents argued that the question paper's framing strictly adhered to the prescribed procedure. They asserted that the syllabus, as per Regulation 6(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, expressly includes Allied Acts relevant to import and export clearance. They maintained that the inclusion of questions from Allied Acts was in full conformity with the statutory framework and that the allegation of being out of syllabus was unfounded. The questions were prepared by qualified experts and vetted by a committee.