JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner having passed his diploma course in 1986, got himself registered under the scheme of unemployed engineers, on 5.1.87 at Sl. No. 4100 (vide Annexure-l) which was valid and was to be continued upto 30th June, 1987. The registration was to be renewed every year before and after 30th June. The Deptt. of Planning (Man Power) published an advertisement (Annexure-2) in the newspapers on 18.6.1987 that the candidates should get their registrations renewed before 15.7.87, and if any candidate does not get his registration renewed, it will be deemed that he is not interested in renewal of his registration and his name would be removed from the merit list without prior notice. That petitioner sent his renewal application form under certificate of posting on 29.6.1987, vide Annexure-3. The petitioner thereafter submitted another communication in August, 1917 stating that he had already sent his renewal application on 29th June, 1987 and also enclosed a copy of the certificate of posting which was handed over in the office personally on 26 8.87. 2. The petitioner, for the first time, came to know on 7.10.87 that his registration has not been renewed and therefore, he sent an application on 8.10.87 (Annexure-4) and thereupon, the Planning (Man Power) Department registered the name of the petitioner afresh at Sl. No. 4804, dated 17.10.87 valid upto 30th June, 1988. The petitioner thereafter, made several representations and also met the officers concerned but with no result. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Notice to show cause was issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Reply to the show cause notice has been filed wherein the respondents have submitted that they never received the renewal application form alleged to have been sent by the petitioner on 29th June, 1987 and they treated his communication dated 26th August, 1987 as an application for renewal and since it was beyond time, they did not renew his registration When the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 7.10.87 for registration, his name was registered at S1. No. 4804. 3. I have heard arguments of the parties. 4. No. 4804. 3. I have heard arguments of the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (1) Meenakshi Sundaram v. S. Venkatesan (AIR 1981 Madras 277 ), and has submitted that there is a presumption under section 114F [Sic Section 114 illustration (f)] of the Evidence Act that a letter sent by post under certificate of posting was delivered to the addressee unless there are circumstances in a particular case to show that the common course of business was not followed and that something extra-ordinary happened which prevented the common course of business being followed. Where the addressee has not placed any material to show that anything happened which prevented the letter written by the sendor under certificate of posting, it could be presumed that the addressee has received the letter. On the same preposition, he has also placed reliance on (2) Himjit Construction v. Tarun Sarkar, ( AIR 1985 Cal. 200 ). 5. Since the respondents have not placed any special circumstance on record, it has to be presumed that the letter sent by the petitioner on 29th June, 1987 under certificate of posting was received by the respondents (addressee) and they ought to have renewed his earlier registration at No. 4.00 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on (3) Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana and another (AIR 1977 NC 2209 ). 6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed, the letter dated 27-11-87 (Anrexure (6) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to renew the petitioner's registration at Sl No. 4100 which will be deemed to be valid upto 30th June, 1988. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******