Unexplained delay and failure to establish qualification for a licensing test can lead to the dismissal of a Writ of Mandamus seeking rectification of a mistake in a certificate.

1. The Petitioner has projected the present Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an Order by this Court in directing the Respondents to issue Certificate of Document Writer Licence by either correcting the existing Certificate bearing Serial No.412 and Registration No.Co 30950 dated 20.07.1998 or by issuing fresh certificate of Document Writer in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of the latest representation dated 16.11.2012.

2. According to the Petitioner, he passed the S.S.L.C. and due to family circumstances, he was constrained to opt for employment in the office of the Sub-Registrar as the Assistant to the Document Writer and over a period he learnt the skill of document writing and registration procedure. As such, he took part in the examination conducted by the Respondents for issuance of Certificate to him authorising his as a Document Writer. During the year 1997 such examination was conducted. Later, no such examination ever was conducted by the Respondents. He became qualified in the examination, while issuing the Certificate bearing Serial No.412 and Registration No.Co 30950 dated 20.07.1998, somehow clerical mistake has been crept in. The printed format had two options viz., 'Document Writer' & 'Copy Writer'. Due to sheer mistake, the portion of Document Writer was struck off instead of striking off the Copy Writer. With the help of mistaken certificate, he has difficulties in performing duties as the Document Writer directly and every time to take shelter under some of the Document Writer or an Advocate to register the document, thereby he is substantially incurring the loss.

3. There is no posting called Copy Writer since the year 1985 and the Respondents had conducted examinations for issuing certificates to Document Writer. With the certificate, no posting in the Government can be claimed. On the other hand, with the certificate, he can improve himself in employment legally. As there is no examination conducted for the post of the Copy Writer and only examination conducted for Document Writer, which can be seen clearly from the Application form he has applied, enclosed in the typed set of papers, the Respondents ought to have corrected the mistake as found in the certificate issued to him. But, till the date of filing of the Writ Petition, the same was not rectified. He made representations to the 1st Respondent directly and on his behalf, his father also made several representations for all these years. On 16.11.2012, he made representations to the 1st Respondent wherein he has mentioned about various remainders and the communication, he has received from the 1st Respondent as well.

4. The 1st Respondent had sent a reply dated 15.04.2009 to the Petitioner directing him to send the request through proper channel, despite the fact whenever he made correspond with the 1st Respondent, he marked a copy to the 2nd Respondent/Jurisdictional Officer. As per order of the 1st Respondent, he sent further request to correct the mistake in the Certificate duly enclosing the copies through 2nd Respondent immediately, which can be seen from the correspondence of the 2nd Respondent, who had declared all the files, had already sent to the 1st Respondent and thereafter, till this date there was no response either from the 1st Respondent or from the 2nd Respondent. Both the Respondents were not appreciating the plight of the poor Document Writer and his sufferings.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the failure on the part of Respondents to rectify the mistake committed, while issuing the Certificate had grossly affected the employment opportunities of the Petitioner and the same directly offend the constitutional right as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the violation of Petitioner's constitutional rights can hardly be delayed endlessly without rectifying the mistake.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents are not