- (1.) The Tamil Nadu Document Writers Association, petitioner in this writ petition, has both Document Writers and Copy Writers in Tamil Nadu as its members. Licensing of these two categories is governed by two different sets of rules. The Document Writers are governed by Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules 1982, whereas the Copy Writers are governed by the Tamil Nadu Copy Writers Licence Rules 1971. By G. O. Ms. No. 317, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments dated May 23, 1990, both the sets of rules were amended. We are concerned only with two of the provisions in these amending rules. By introducing R. 4(A) in the Document Writers Rules, it was provided that "the persons holding Document Writers Licence as on May 23, 1990 shall continue as such till they complete sixty years of age". By R.. 7(2), it was provided that "no person shall be eligible to apply for Document Writers Licensing Test unless he has passed the Higher Secondary Examination or its equivalent examination". So far as the Copy Writers are concerned the Amendment provided by the Proviso to R. 7(2) that "The persons holding Copy Writers Licence as on May 23, 1990 may continue as such till they complete sixty years of age". It was further provided by R. 7(2) that "no person shall be eligible to apply for the test prescribed in R. 8 unless he has passed the 10th standard or its equivalent examination".
(2.) Some of the document writers approached the Madras High Court by way of Writ Petition 931 of 1990 and batch complaining of the said amendments to Document Writers Rules. The Madras High Court by its Judgment and Order dated October 11, 1991 declared that R. 4(A) is not only vague, inherently defective and indefinite but is also violative of Arts. 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. The said Judgment has become final. Indeed the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu stated before us that the Government has taken a conscious decision not to file an appeal against the said Judgment.
(3.) The present Writ Petition along with Civil Appeal No. 3187 of 1991 came up before a Bench comprising S. Ranganathan, J. and one of us (B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J) on September 24, 1992. At that stage a copy of the Judgment of the Madras High Court aforesaid was not made available to this court. Accordingly the Bench considered only the rule which provided that the document writers should obtain the higher-grade typewriting qualification to enable them to get a licence. The appeal was disposed of under the following order: "In our opinion the High Court's judgment calls for no interference in so far as it has given relief to the appellant and directed that document writers should get higher grade typewriting qualification only in one language either English or Tamil but not both. Otherwise the requirement that the document writers should have a higher grade qualification in typewriting does not appear to be an unreasonable restriction and we agree with the High Court in this respect. It appears to us, however, that having regard to the sudden change in qualification prescribed by the Government, it is necessary and it will also be equitable on the part of the Government to give to the members of the Association, having their licences in earlier years, an adequate opportunity to qualify themselves as required by the amended rules. We, therefore, consider it reasonable to bold that the new rules should not be implemented in respect of persons who had been having licences prior to 4-8-89, unless they fail to qualify in the higher writing examination within such reasonable period not less than three years from today as the Government may prescribe. We hope the Government will implement this by issuing orders to this effect immediately. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." ;