IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 9710 of 2008(E) PETITIONER: 1. AJITH NARAYAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O M.KRISHNANKUTTY, NARAYANEEYAM, MANCHAKKAD ROAD, KUREEKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. K.J.GLADIS, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O K.G.JOY, MAMPILLY HOUSE, 36/81, OLD ST.AUGUSTIN'S SCHOOL ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INSPECTION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, D-BLOCK, IP BHAVAN, IP ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110002. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.R.BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-1. 4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 9710 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought for in this writ petition are for declaring that the petitioners have succeeded in the oral examination conducted for granting licence as Custom House Agents, in the light of the marks scored by them. There is a further prayer to direct the respondents to conduct the next interview within the jurisdictional Commissionerate, Cochin by permitting the petitioners to attend the same. 2. The petitioners were applicants for getting licenced as Custom House Agent. The selection of Custom House Agent is as per Ext.P7, the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. In terms of the said regulations, a candidate is required to pass a written examination and also an oral interview that is to be held by the interview board consisting of Commissioner of Customs and others. 3. In this case, the petitioners had appeared for the written examination and had passed in the same. On the strength of this, it is stated that the petitioners had appeared for two interviews, the maximum number of which, permissible in terms of the said regulations is three. In WPC 9710/08 :2 : the oral interviews, the petitioners have failed. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed for a declaration that they should be deemed to have passed in the oral interview. 4. It is stated that in terms of the regulations scope of the interview is only for ascertaining the familiarity of the candidate with the work of Custom House Agent. According to them, they have been doing this work for long and since their performance was satisfactory to them, there is no reason to fail in the interview. It is true that the scope of the interview is as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. But then, that does not mean that all candidates should automatically succeed in the interview. The familiarity of a candidate with the work is a matter to be assessed by the Interview Board and it is their judgment that prevails. It may be true that the petitioners were satisfied with their performance before the interview board, but then if the interview board on assessment of the performance of the petitioners was unsatisfied with their performance, it is their assessment which matters and the satisfaction of the petitioners will not render it vitiated in any manner. 5. Petitioners contend that interviews are being held outside the jurisdictional Commissionerate, Cochin and therefore a direction should be issued in this behalf. On going through Ext.P7 regulations, the learned WPC 9710/08 :3 : counsel has not been able to show me any regulation obliging the respondents to conduct the interview at the jurisdictional Commissionerate alone. In view of this, this relief also cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp