Judgment : 1. According to the petitioner he had completed his B.A (Telugu) and have also acquired B.Ed Degree and registered his name in the Employment Exchange at Thiruvallur in the year 1994. Subsequent, he shifted his residence to Krishnagiri District and the employment registration was also transferred to the District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri on 24.03.2000. There was a change in the employment number in 2005 and the petitioner had been diligently renewing his registration and his last renewal was to expire on June 2009. Since the petitioner could not approach the third respondent in person, he had made a written request on 15.06.2009 for renewal and had forwarded the request by post. It is stated that the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that the employment registration would be renewed by the third respondent. But to his shock he came to understand that the third respondent had not received the request made by the petitioner. It is thereafter the petitioner approached the third respondent in person on 26.10.2009 with a request to renew the employment registration since list of candidates were called for certificate verification for being considered for appointment to the post of BT. Asistant (Telugu Pandit), to which the third respondent refused to renew the petitioners employment registration and in this regard the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 2. Interim order was granted by this Court on 2.11.2009 directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview and certificate verification to be held on 03.11.2009 without sponsoring from the third respondent Employment Exchange. 3. According to the learned counsel the petitioner has attended the interview and certificate verification on 03.11.2009. The learned Additional Government Pleader based on written instructions dated 2.11.2009 received from the Commissioner of Employment and Trainee, would contend that the petitioner had registered his qualification of B.A (Telugu) and B.Ed Degree with the third respondent on 24.03.2000. But he has failed to renew his registration and his registration had lapsed and have been transferred to the dead register and therefore, his name was not sponsored for the preparation of consolidated list to be sent to the first respondent during September 2009 for the vacancy of the BT. Asistant (Telugu Pandit), though the seniority of the petitioner falls within the cut off date i.e., 13.11.2003. Asistant (Telugu Pandit), though the seniority of the petitioner falls within the cut off date i.e., 13.11.2003. The Department of Employment and Training has given certain guidelines as regards the objective of setting up of Employment Exchanges is Registration with the Exchange, renewal of registration and transfer of registrations under the head, Renewal of Registration it is stated as follows; "Candidates should renew their registrations with the Employment Exchange once in three years. Candidates who fail to renew registrations in due time could apply for renewal up to 18 months from the month during which the renewal falls due. This concession can be availed only once". This extract of the guide lines states that the candidates who failed to renew the registration in due time could apply for renewal up to 18 months from the month during which the renewal falls due. In the present instant case the renewal falls due on June 2009. 4. However it is seen that the petitioner had approached the third respondent within the time of 18 months i.e., on 26.10.2009. Though it is stated by the petitioner that he made a written request on 15.06.2009 for renewal of registration, no such proof has been placed before this Court. In any event the petitioner having approached the third respondent on 26.10.2009, which is well within the time limit prescribed under the guide lines, it would be appropriate for the authorities to consider the renewal of the petitioners registration. If such application is considered and renewal is granted the same shall take effect from June 2009. It is to be noted that the petitioner also falls within the cut off date of seniority i.e., 13.11.2003. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the reason assigned for not forwarding the petitioners name to the first and second respondents is a hyper technical approach which would deny the petitioner, the right of employment and consequently, the action of the third respondent in not forwarding the name should be taken as violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In as much as the petitioner had already participated in the interview and certificate verification on 03.01.2009, it is a fit case in which appropriate directions has to be issued. 5. In as much as the petitioner had already participated in the interview and certificate verification on 03.01.2009, it is a fit case in which appropriate directions has to be issued. 5. Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case there will be direction to the third respondent to accept the petitioners application dated 26.10.2009 for renewal of his registration and consider the same and pass appropriate orders and forward the petitioners name to the first and second respondents for being considered for the appointment. On receipt of the petitioners nomination from the third respondent the first and the second respondents shall finalise the selection held on 03.11.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The third respondent shall comply with the directions issued, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.