O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 06.05.2013 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to issue the document writer license to the petitioner and grant such other further relief.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a graduate in Arts (Economics) and entered into service in the Registration Department as ''Junior Assistant'' in the year 1971 and by merit and seniority, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 1993 and thereafter, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2006 and subsequently he was also given notional promotion as SRO Grade II by an order dated 07.07.2011. It is alleged by the petitioner that as per the Tamil Nadu Documents Writers License Rules, ''any retired official of the Registration Department who has served in a post not below the rank of Sub Registrar' is entitled to apply for document writer license. Since the petitioner having the required qualification, and he is retired official of the Registration Department and further the 1st respondent also issued the notional promotion as SRO Grade II, he is entitled for document writer license. Accordingly, the petitioner made application on 10.07.2012 for issuance of license, and after receipt of the application, the 2nd respondent forwarded the application to the 1st respondent to issue a license. Thereafter, the 1st respondent without any application of mind, had simply rejected the application by issuing the non speaking order dated 06.05.2013, stating that the petitioner is not eligible for issuance of document writer license as per Rule 4(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Document Writers License Rule, 1982. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner became fully qualified for grant of the licence, his application was rejected vide the impugned order without any plausible reason and when the petitioner approached the respondents, they informed that though the petitioner was promoted as SRO-Grade II it was a notional promotion and that the petitioner has not actually served as SRO.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the present impugned order was passed without application of mind, and without assigning any reasons. As per Rule 4, any retired official of Registration Department, who had the required qualification to be appointed as a Sub Registrar are eligible for the grant of a license. In the present case on hand, the qualification for the post of Sub Registrar is that the person must have served in the feeder category as Assistant in the Registration Department. Further, already the petitioner has served as an Assistant and possessed the required the qualification for Assistant as well as Sub Registrar. Inspite of the same, the respondent has passed the rejection order, which is non est in law and prays for allowing of this petition.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner retired from service and at the time of his retirement, he did not serve as Sub Registrar and therefore, his application for grant of license was rejected in terms of Rule 4(3)(iii) of the above said Rules, vide the impugned order. A cursory reading of Rule 4(3)(iii) framed under the Registration Act would go to show that no person shall be not eligible for a license unless he has passed the Document Writers' License Test held by the Inspector General of Registration and any retired official of the Registration Department who has served in a post not below the rank of Sub Registrar would become eligible for appointment as a Document Writer. This being so, the petitioner has never served as a full time Sub Registrar and subsequent to his retirement, he was only given a notional promotion and the relevant rule