Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the State Transport Corporation to appoint the petitioner as a conductor in the first respondent Corporation under priority category as provided under G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 212. 1976 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father owned agricultural land comprised in S.No.724/1A and 724/1B of Ponnivadi village, measuring an extent of 6.02.20 hectares. The said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Nallathangal Odai reservoir in the year 2003. The petitioner is having a valid licence for the post conductor and has registered his name with the District Employment Office in the year 1990. It is the further case of the petitioner that because of the land acquisition proceedings the petitioner was deprived of the means of livelihood. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 212. 1976 has given priority in employment to the members of the family whose land had been acquired for public purposes and who were dependent upon the land acquired for their livelihood, in order to alleviate the sufferings of the family members. The petitioner’s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of conductor and on that basis the first respondent issued a call letter dated 29.03.1997 calling upon the petitioner for interview fixed on 13.04.2007. Four candidates appeared for the interview under the priority category. As nothing was heard from the respondent, the petitioner was constrained to send a representation dated 20.7.2007 to consider his case for appointment. Aggrieved by the action of the first respondent not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment under priority category as provided in G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 212. 1976 the petitioner has failed this writ petition with the prayer stated above. 3. This writ petition was directed to be listed along with the batch of writ petitions which we considered and disposed off on 110. 2007 in writ appeal No. 894 of 2007. When the matter was taken up for orders it was represented before this Court that the point in issue in this case is not as that of the point canvassed in the batch of writ petition. Hence, the matter was heard separately. .4. 2007 in writ appeal No. 894 of 2007. When the matter was taken up for orders it was represented before this Court that the point in issue in this case is not as that of the point canvassed in the batch of writ petition. Hence, the matter was heard separately. .4. The claim of the petitioner was refuted by the Government stating that though the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land owned by the petitioner was accepted, it was contended that the respondent was in no way connected with the acquisition proceedings, under which the land of the petitioner has been acquired for the purposes of construction of reservoir. The Government order on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner for priority appointment would apply only to the .Government service and the service under the respondent Corporation will not come within the purview of the Government Order. Hence, the reliance on that G.O. would not in any way advance the case of the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 212. 1976 provided that the list in regard to the provision of employment assistance through employment exchange was issued in G.O.Ms.No.1873 Public (Service-J) Department dated 10.08.1970. Subsequently additions and deletions of certain category of persons were added in the G.O.Ms.No.1299 Public (Service-J) 15.05.1972 and G.O.Ms.No.4052 Public (Service-J) dated 212. 1974. The Government of India by their order dated 212. 1971 issued by the Department of Personnel, New Delhi in Memorandum No. 14/21/7 had given higher priority to disabled ex service men and for the members of the family of the defence service personnel killed in action. The Government therefore examined the question of further revising and re-issuing the order of priority on the line with that of the Central Government in consultation with the Director of Employment and Training. The Government therefore examined the question of further revising and re-issuing the order of priority on the line with that of the Central Government in consultation with the Director of Employment and Training. In Supersession of the G.O.Ms.No.1873 as subsequently amended, the Government directed that the order of priorities in regard to provision of employment assistance through employment exchanged shall be indicated in the annexure to the G.O. In the Annexure-in Group II Members of the family (including members of Scheduled Cast/Schedule Tribes) whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects of the public sector undertakings subject to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes who may be eligible for employment. Thus, it could be seen that in the G.O.Ms.No.188 orders were issued among others to the members of the family whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as in the projects of public sector undertakings subject to the condition that preference in employment should be given to those who are depending for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and displaced on account of acquisition be accorded third priority under Group II as per the list of priority annexed of the G.O. .7. Learned counsel relied on that portion of the G.O. which gives priority in the annexure to contend that he should be given priority in the matter of employment. In order to decide whether the claim of the petitioner can be sustained, we are of the view that it is better to extract the relevant portion on which reliance has been made by the petitioner: .“Members of the family (including members of Scheduled Caste/ Schedule Tribes) whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects of the public sector undertakings subject to the condition that preference should be given to those who are dependent for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes who may be eligible for employment.” 8. From the above extract, it is clear that (1) the land should have been acquired from the person concerned for Government purposes/for the project of public sector undertakings and (2) the acquisition is subject to the condition that preference would be given in the matter of employment to those who were depending for their livelihood primarily or wholly on the land acquired. From among those persons who were displaced, members of the Scheduled castes/Scheduled Tribes shall be given preference. 9. So far as the facts in the present case are concerned, it is contended that the land of the petitioner’s father has been acquired for the purpose of construction of dam, but the important factor is whether acquisition had been made subject to the condition that preference should be given in the matter of employment for those who are dependent on the land acquired. There is no whisper about any such assurance in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner has not even taken the slightest pain of producing any material to suggest that acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of Nallathangal Odai Reservoir has been subject to the condition that they will be given preference in the employment. In the absence of any such material, we are not able to countenance the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to preference in employment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pon Muthu Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006-3 LW 460, to support his case. We are afraid, whether the said judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the reported case, the fact was that the land of the petitioner’s father in an extant of 4.23 acres were acquired for formation of a Liquid Propulsion Test Facilities Centre, by the Administrative Office, Liquid Propulsion Service Centre, Mahendragiri and it was claimed by the writ petitioner that the respondent therein made him give up his land assured that atleast one person from the family of the displaced would be given employment in the third respondent-centre at Mahendragiri on completion of construction. In this factual matrix of that case and relying on the G.O. No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978 the petitioner moved this Court. In this factual matrix of that case and relying on the G.O. No.656, Labour and Employment Department, dated 29.06.1978 the petitioner moved this Court. Though the learned single Judge non suited the petitioner on the ground of latches, the Division Bench granted the relief on the ground that the petitioner therein was entitled to the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.656 dated 26. 1978. It is pertinent to refer to the G.O. which has been extracted in paragraph 10 of this judgment: “10. In order to understand the claim of the parties, it is useful to refer G.O.Ms.No.656, Labour and Employment Department dated 29.06.1978, which reads as under: “ABSTRACT Employment- Employment assistance to families displaced on account of acquisition of land- procedure of recruitment orders-issued. Labour and Employment Department G.O. Ms. No.656 dated 29.06.1978 Read also. 1. G.O.Ms.No.188, Personal and Administrative Reform dated 212. 1976. 2. From the Government of Tamil Nadu, Ministry of Industries Letter No.F.B. (4)/LP/77 dated 15.01.1977. Order: In the G.O. first read above, orders were issued among other, that the members of families whose lands have been acquired for Government purposes as well as for the projects of the Public Sector undertakings and displaced as a result of the acquisition be accorded third priority under group II of the list of priorities annexed to the said G.O. in the matter of provisions of Employment assistance through Employment Exchanges. 2. The Govt. of India in their letter second read above, have requested this Government to issue instructions to the private sector as well as State Public Sector Undertakings to provide employment to at least one person of the family displaced on account of acquisition of land for the establishment of a project in the public sector or in the private sector. The Government have examined the above suggestion in detail in consultation with Director of Employment and Training, Madras and pass the following orders:- .(i) all public sector undertakings may recruit without reference to Employment Exchange, at least one number of each family which is displaced on account of acquisition of lands for any projects of such Public Sector Undertakings etc., provided that the acquired land should have been the only or major source of sustenance for the family. .(ii) The term displaced family will include owner of the land or the cultivating tenants of Varamadars. .(ii) The term displaced family will include owner of the land or the cultivating tenants of Varamadars. (iii) The appointing authorities concerned of the respective Public Sector Undertaking, etc., shall themselves ascertain and decide whether the land was the major source of sustenance of family displaced from the land acquired, without insisting on production of any certificate from Revenue authorities before recruitment is made. (iv) For consideration of appointment as indicated in 2 (i) above, first priority should be assigned to the cultivating owner and the cultivating tenant or varamdars and second priority only should be given to the absentee landlords. 3. The department of Secretariat are requested to communicate the above orders to all Public Sectors Undertaking, Statutory Corporation, etc., under their control for adoption with immediate effect. /by order of the Governor/ C. RAMACHANDRAN Secretary to Government /true copy/ Sd. Section Officer” 11. It is clear from the above said G.O. that the G.O. provided for employment to one person of the family displaced on account of the acquisition of land for establishment of the projects in the public sector or in private sector. All the Public sector undertaking were directed to recruit without reference to employment exchange altleast one member of each family which was displaced on account of acquisition of land for any projects of such public sector undertakings, provided that the acquired land should have been the only or major source of sustenance for the family. 12. Here is a case, in which, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the land of the petitioner was acquired only for the purpose of construction of Nallathangal Odai reservoir and not for the purpose of public sector undertaking. Hence, not only the G.O., but also the judgment of the Division Bench did not advance the case of the petitioner any further. 13. Except the claim of preference on the basis of the above said G.O., no other point has been argued before us. As we have alreadly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the G.O., or the judgment, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is consequently dismissed.