Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to renew the petitioner's registration in District Employment Office in Registration No. 15/967/96 along with the seniority from the initial date of registration and restore the seniority. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she passed M.A., M.Ed., and was doing M.Phil., in History also B.A., in Indian Music. The petitioner got married in the year 1987 and was driven out of matrimonial home in the year 1994. Thereafter, she got employed as domestic helper for meager salary of Rs.300/-per month. Subsequently, she completed B.A in History and B.Ed., degree. After completion of the same, the petitioner registered her name in the 2nd respondent Employment Office on 28.05.1996 with Registration No.15/967/96 with Occupation Code No.151/10. The petitioner subsequently renewed her registration in May 1999 and again in the month of May 2002. The petitioner subsequently acquired the additional qualifications of M.A. in History and M.Ed in History and the petitioner renewed her registration in May 2002. As she was suffering from Prolectomania, she was unable to renew the registration in the month of May 2005. However, she applied for renewal in June 2006 after a delay of eleven months. The petitioner was under the impression that her registration was renewed. However, when she was not permitted to participate in an interview conducted for selection to the post of Teachers during the month of December 2006, she came to know that her registration was not renewed by the 2nd respondent. On verification, the petitioner was given to understand that some mistake has been committed by the 2nd respondent and her registration has been allotted to some other third party and as such, the said third party also got an employment. The 2nd respondent also refused to renew the registration of the petitioner inspite of her repeated representations. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner registered her name with B.A., B.Ed., qualifications on 28.05.1996 and renewed her registration in the year 1999 and 2002. She did not renew the registration during the year 2005. So her registration got lapsed. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner registered her name with B.A., B.Ed., qualifications on 28.05.1996 and renewed her registration in the year 1999 and 2002. She did not renew the registration during the year 2005. So her registration got lapsed. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent that it is false claim of the petitioner that she had applied for renewal during the month of June 2006. The petitioner sent a petition on 28.05.2008 to the Office of the 2nd respondent requesting for renewal. However, the same was not considered, as the time for renewal got lapsed in the month of July 2006 itself. 4. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that she had applied for renewal in the month of June 2006 by dropping the application in a box placed in the Office of the 2nd respondent. It is further stated by the petitioner that on verification, she was given to understand that in the ledger / live register her name was shown as Thangameena instead of Muthumeena with some other address. It is further stated by the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu granted concession to candidates to renew their employment registration periodically and therefore, the petitioner's request ought to have been considered by the 2nd respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 6. The admitted case herein is that the petitioner got her name registered in the 2nd respondent Employment Office and renewed the same till the month of May 2002. It is the claim of the petitioner that she made an application for renewal during the month of June 2006 by dropping the application in the drop box available at the 2nd respondent Office. However, the said claim is denied by the 2nd respondent. At any event, it is admitted by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had already approached through her representation, dated 28.08.2008, seeking for renewal of her registration. When the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent seeking for renewal, the same ought to have been considered and renewed her registration by taking note of the periodical concession granted by the Government allowing the persons to renew the registration, which got lapsed due to certain reasons. When the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent seeking for renewal, the same ought to have been considered and renewed her registration by taking note of the periodical concession granted by the Government allowing the persons to renew the registration, which got lapsed due to certain reasons. Needless to say that mere renewal is not going to give an employment to the persons automatically. It is their right to get their name registered with the Employment Exchange. Such registration would only give some hope for them to get employment as and when any recruitment is made. It is seen from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner studied M.A., M.Ed., and also a destitute woman, unfortunately. It appears that she was working as domestic helper for meager salary of Rs.300/- per month. She is also a mother of two daughters. Even with such educational qualifications, she is struggling to eke her lively hood by doing some domestic helper work, that too, for a salary of Rs.300/-. What a pathetic condition she is put to?! Any amount of words of sympathy would serve no purpose. Therefore, the respondents, more particularly, the 2nd respondent, without approaching the issue in a technical manner should consider the case of the petitioner with all pragmatic and more practical approach and grant the relief to the petitioner by renewing her name in the Employment registration. 7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get her name renewed at the Office of the 2nd respondent, as prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to renew the petitioner's name in the Employment registration, as prayed for in this writ petition, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is ordered. No costs.