U SANKARAN Vs. P L NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the communications dated 3. 2. 2009 and 9. 1. 2009, wherein and by which the petitioners were informed that on perusal of their petition and having found that they were also married and the relevant Government Orders providing employment guarantee in respect of the land acquisition, only to such of those sons and daughters who are unmarried alone, priority certificate shall be granted. These communications sent by the 2nd respondent by a post card is being challenged in these two Writ petitions.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that their lands were acquired. In the case of the first petitioner, land situated in Mathur Village, Tiruttani Taluk, tiruvallur District, which was owned by his father was acquired by the 3rd respondent for forming Railway line and then Award was passed on 31. 3. 1960. In the case of the 2nd petitioner, land was acquired from the very same village, which was standing in the name of his father and Award was passed on 30. 3. 1960.

(3.) THEREFORE, in the light of the Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 188, Pandar department dated 28. 12. 1976, priority can be given to the owners of the land, which was acquired for Government purpose. While the 1st petitioner had completed X Standard and also having a public duty licence for working as a conductor, he is eligible to get employment as a Conductor. In the case of the 2nd petitioner, he has a Diploma in Teacher Education and had also registered in the Employment Exchange in the year 2000. The father of the 1st petitioner died as early as in the year 1993 and in the second case it was in the year 2005. Therefore, they wanted their name registered and have approached the Tahsildar, thiruttani Taluk, applying for priority certificate in the light of the g. O. Ms. No. 656, Labour and Employment Department dated 29. 6. 1978. Such a certificate has also been issued for both the petitioners on 26. 12. 2008. It was thereafter, the present communications were sent by the 2nd respondent stating that since the petitioners were already married, they are ineligible to get the priority registration.