BINOD KUMAR ROY AND LAKSHMI BIHARI, JJ. ( 1 ) TWO fold prayers have been made by the petitioner in this writ petition : (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide Job to the petitioner as per Government Orders issued time to time particularly the G. O. dated 29. 6. 1988 (Annexure-No. 1 to this writ petition ). (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioners representations which are already pending for disposal. " ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the lands recorded in the name of his father Ishwari Prasad sharma were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Uttar pradesh in 1971 for the purposes of making a residential colony by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas parishad ; the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued several notifications and Government Orders for providing service to the members of the family of such persons whose lands have been acquired by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad appending one of the G. Os. as Annexure-1 ; even though the petitioner is fully entitled to be appointed under the aforementioned Government Orders and had made a representation (as contained in Annexure-5) through the Collector, Agra (respondent no. 1) to the Assistant Commissioner. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for providing employment and despite a recommendation made in that regard by Srf Bhagwan Shanker Rawat, member of Parliament, the respondents are not providing any employment to him and hence this writ petition. ( 3 ) WHEN this writ petition was placed on 30. 4. 1996 before a Division Bench comprising R. A. Sharma and S. R. Alam, JJ. following order was passed by the Bench : "learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a weeks time to file the copies of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act requiring his land as well as notice under Section 9 of the said Act. He will also file the copy of the award along with the supplementary affidavit. List this writ petition thereafter on which date learned counsel may place relevant case laws. Sd. /-R- A. Sharma. J. Sd. / s. R. Alam, J. " ( 4 ) MR. He will also file the copy of the award along with the supplementary affidavit. List this writ petition thereafter on which date learned counsel may place relevant case laws. Sd. /-R- A. Sharma. J. Sd. / s. R. Alam, J. " ( 4 ) MR. Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the aforementioned order the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record a copy of the award relating to acquisition of the lands in question. He also, contended that in the facts and circumstances mentioned as above, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for by him. ( 5 ) SRI Swaroop, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended that the only G. O. brought on the record in the form of Annexure-1 does not show that the Government has decided to give employment to the members of the family of those persons whose lands have been acquired rather merely a list of seniority of those persons have been directed to be prepared to give preference in employment and no direction has been issued that as a matter of course such persons will be given employment. ( 6 ) A perusal of the G. O. as contained in Annexure-1 supports the contention of Mr. Swaroop. The petitioner has not brought on the record the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the Government had mentioned its decision to provide employment to those persons whose lands have been acquired for public purpose nor does the award, which has been brought on the record by the petitioner by way of said Annexure-1, shows that thing. ( 7 ) WE, thus, find substance in the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General and accept them. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to issuance of a high prerogative writ like mandamus commanding the respondents to give him employment de hors of the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 16 read with Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to issuance of a high prerogative writ like mandamus commanding the respondents to give him employment de hors of the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 16 read with Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) WE put on record that no occasion arose for us to consider the constitutional validity of such a g. O. deciding and commanding the State officials to provide employment to the members of the family of those persons whose lands have been acquired, in this writ petition. ( 10 ) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances we make no order as to cost. ( 11 ) THE office is directed to handover a copy of this order to the learned standing counsel Sri P. K. Bisaria who has assisted the learned Additional Advocate General during course of his submissions for its intimation to the authority concerned. .