Judgment These two Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge the communications dated 2. 2009 and 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 33. 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, P&AR Department dated 212. 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 26. 1978. Such a Certificate has also been issued for both the petitioners on 212. 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. 4. Mr. 1978. Such a Certificate has also been issued for both the petitioners on 212. 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. 4. Mr. N. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very same question came up for consideration before this Court in S. Varathan vs. the Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai-9 and others in W.P.No. 37004 of 2007 dated 12. 2008. This Court, after analysing the Government Order in respect of the priority certificate and extracting the relevant criteria for issuance of the priority certificate in paragraph 4 had observed as follows: "4. However, the 2nd respondent has rejected the same in the impugned order. A reference to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent shows that the only reason on which the claim of the petitioner was rejected is that he was a married person and he cannot be treated as dependant as referred in the G.O.Ms.No.188 Dated 212. 76, which has been passed for the purpose for recruitment through Employment Exchange and to give priority to the candidates for registration in various categories of persons. In respect of the family whose property has been acquired for Government purpose the said G.O.states as follows: "Group-II: i) ... ii) ... iii) .... iv) .... v) Members of the family (including members of Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe) 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 hwolly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment." The terms as used in the G.O only states as members of the family. Further giving priority to the persons who have been wholly or primarily dependent on the said land for livelihood acquired for Government purposes. Nowhere the Government Order states about the status of the person whether he is married or not. Further giving priority to the persons who have been wholly or primarily dependent on the said land for livelihood acquired for Government purposes. Nowhere the Government Order states about the status of the person whether he is married or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and his family are dependent for their livelihood on the land which has been acquired and the reason adduced by the 2nd respondent in not giving priority to the petitioner for registration in the Employment Exchange is not legal." It is now stated by the learned Government Advocate that there is no appeal against the said order and it has become final. 5. In the light of the above, the impugned communications sent by the 2nd respondent is not valid and it is hereby set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioners as priority certificate holders and send appropriate sponsorship certificate as and when any requisition is made by the relevant authorities. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.