Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.M.Gnanasekar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the action of the third respondent in nor registering the Preference Certificate furnished by the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct the third respondent to register the Preference Certificate and sponsor the name of the petitioners by giving due preference to the Preference Certificate furnished by the petitioners and subsequently, the prayer was amended as per Court order dated 08.08.2008 in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.14917 of 2008 in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the concerned records relating to a letter No.A3/1837/06 dated 14.05.2007 passed by the third respondent and quash the same. 3. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner passed Mechanical Engineering in Fitter, the second petitioner having passed B.C.S., B.P.Ed., the third petitioner, a qualified Tailor having passed Diploma in Tailoring, the fourth petitioner passed B.A., B.P.Ed., the fifth petitioner is in possession of D.Pharm (Diploma in Pharmacy), the sixth petitioner passed C.P.Ed., the seventh petitioner passed Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (DME) and the eighth petitioner passed B.Lit., D.T.Ed. All the petitioners have registered their names with the Employment Exchange vide Nos. 11112/94, 11081/2000, 5335/2002, 15093/1997, 5948/1994, 8727/2001, 4208/2003 and 11609/1999. 3a. It is submitted by the petitioners that their lands were given for acquisition to the extent of 0.25 cent of land each in so far as the 1st, 4th and 8th petitioners are concerned. The 2nd, 3rd and 5th petitioners have given their lands to the extent of 0.23 cent each, 0.27 cent of land in so far as the 6th petitioner is concerned and the 7th petitioner has given 0.26 cent of land respectively. 3b. The petitioners stated that all the lands were patta lands in Survey Nos. 121/1A2, 4/1B2, 4/1B, 121/1A2, 4/1A2, 121/1A1 and 121/1A2 of the Kollakkaravadi Village, Polur Taluk in Thiruvannamalai District. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.146 AD & TW Department dated 14.08.1995 delegated powers to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai and the Chairman of the Private Negotiation Committee permitted a special Tahsildar (ADW) Polur to purchase the dry lands to the extent of 0.92.0 (2.27 acres) in Survey Nos. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.146 AD & TW Department dated 14.08.1995 delegated powers to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai and the Chairman of the Private Negotiation Committee permitted a special Tahsildar (ADW) Polur to purchase the dry lands to the extent of 0.92.0 (2.27 acres) in Survey Nos. 121/1A1, 121/1A2 in Kollakkaravadi Village, Plour Taluk in Thiruvannamalai District at Rs.13,000/-per acre and at a consolidated amount of Rs.29,510/- through Private Negotiation to implement Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme for the issue of house site pattas free of cost to Adi Dravidars Families in Kollakkaravadi Village, Polur Taluk. The Special Tahsildar (ADW) Polur was authorised to draw and disburse the amount to the land owners on execution of the sale deed in favour of Government of Tamil Nadu. 3c. It is further submitted by the petitioners that it was mentioned in the certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar that the petitioners were land loosers and entitled to get the preference in the matter of employment Therefore, the land owners have appeared before the Committee on 13.03.2006 after the Negotiation Committee agreed to purchase the lands at Rs.13,000/- only. 3d. It is the case of the petitioners that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.No.188 dated 28.12.1976 inter alia providing that land loosers are entitled to get preference in the matter of appointment in the Government Departments against the post filled by direct recruitment. All the petitioners have approached the Employment Officer, Thiruvannamalai to register the certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar for the purpose of getting preference in the matter of sponsorship by the Employment Exchange for appointment. However, all the petitioners received an identical reply from the Employment Officer, Thiruvannamalai, wherein, stating that the District Collector was approached for issuing necessary clarification in this matter and the District Collector in turn informed the Employment Officer that the certificates issued by the Special Tahsildar were issued without taking into account the guidelines issued by the Government and the District Collector further directed the Employment Officer not to consider the preference certificates issued by the Special Tahsildar. Therefore, the request of the petitioners for registering the preference certificates was rejected. 3e. Therefore, the request of the petitioners for registering the preference certificates was rejected. 3e. The petitioners claim that during 20052006, several lands were taken for the purpose of issuing house sites to the poor excepting the places like Mekkaloor, Renderipattu and Kulakkaravadi and in all the places, the lands were taken by the Government particularly for the Harijan Welfare. The details of persons, who were issued with the certificates and documents, were also registered by the third respondent and the persons were also given appointment. The details of persons are as follows: Sl. No. Place Particulars of land given 1 Vandavasi - Kodiyalam Mathiazhagan - 0.17 cent Duraimurugan - 0.15 cent Nambirasan - 0.14 cent 2. Vandavasi - Oorkudi Anbazhagan - 0.25 cent Moorthy - 0.25 cent Manoharan - 0.24 cent Selvaraghavan- 0.26 cent Harikrishnan - 0.25 cent Venkatesan - 0.25 cent Anbu - 0.25 cent Ramesh- 0.25 cent 3. Vandavasi - Nagaram Thirumalai- 0.20 cent Ravikumar- 0.20 cent Nedunchezhian- 0.20 cent Lalitha- 0.23 cent Murugan- 0.21 cent Therefore, according to them, the action of the second respondent in directing the third respondent not to register the preference certificates issued by the Special Tahsildar is highly illegal and arbitrary and liable for declaration by this Court on the ground that the certificates of preference issued by the competent authority are valid and binding on the 3rd respondent unless or until the same are cancelled by the higher authority. It is their further stand that the third respondent had committed an illegality in referring the matter to the second respondent for clarification, when no clarification is required. Hence, the action of the third respondent is highly improper and uncalled for and he has no manner of right to reject the registration of the preference certificate. 4. The respondents have filed their counter, wherein, it is stated that the first petitioner, namely, K.Balasubramanian is residing at No.4, Pookkar Arunachalam Street, Polur Town of Thiruvannamalai District, who had registered his educational qualification in the Employment Exchange, Thiruvannamalai vide Registration No.11112/1994 dated 17.11.1994 and he belongs to Most Backward Class community. All other petitioners had purchased a piece of land in Survey Nos.121/1A2 and 4/1B2 in Kollakaravadi Village of Polur Taluk in Thiruvannamalai District and the same were handed over to the Special Tahsildar, Adidravidar Welfare, Polur on 20.03.2006. All other petitioners had purchased a piece of land in Survey Nos.121/1A2 and 4/1B2 in Kollakaravadi Village of Polur Taluk in Thiruvannamalai District and the same were handed over to the Special Tahsildar, Adidravidar Welfare, Polur on 20.03.2006. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Certificates produced by the petitioners were sent to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai for ascertaining the genuineness of the same as per SEECM No.20/94. 4a. It is stated in the counter that the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai in his letter No.K1/41038/2006 dated 19.08.2006 had informed the Employment Exchange that the priority certificates submitted by the petitioners were not in accordance with the norms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.188 P&A.R. Department dated 28.12.1976 and refused to confirm the genuineness of the certificates. The orders of the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai dated 19.08.2006 was communicated to the petitioners vide letter No.A3/1837/2006 dated 14.05.2007. It is also pointed out in the counter that the land acquisition certificates produced by the petitioners were not registered in the Employment Exchange, Thiruvannamalai as per the orders of the District Collector. Hence, there is no discrimination in this regard 4b. It is submitted by the respondents that as per the Departmental procedure vide SEECM No.20/94 dated 31.03.1994, any priority certificate produced by the registrant should be registered in the Employment Exchange only after ascertaining the genuineness of the same from the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Certificates produced by the petitioners were sent to the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai for ascertaining its genuineness. When the competent authority refused to confirm the genuineness of the priority certificates, it could not be registered in the Employment Exchange, as they were not in accordance with norms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.188 P&A.R. Department dated 28.12.1976 as per the instructions issued by the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai. Therefore, the priority certificates produced by the petitioners were not registered in the Employment Exchange. 4c. In the counter, it is also sated that the petitioners are living at various places of Polur Taluk of Thiruvannamalai District. All of them have their own houses and lands at their native places. They purchased some piece of lands each on 25.10.2005, which are far away from their native places and the same were handed over to the Special Tahsildar, Polur on 20.03.2006. All of them have their own houses and lands at their native places. They purchased some piece of lands each on 25.10.2005, which are far away from their native places and the same were handed over to the Special Tahsildar, Polur on 20.03.2006. Therefore, the action of the petitioners would clearly show that only to get priority certificates, they purchased the piece of lands and they are not actually depending on the income of the acquired lands. Hence, on account, their livelihood has not at all been affected. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his submission has consistently contended that the petitioners were the land owners and their lands were acquired for the purpose of public distribution to use as house sites. Land Acquisition Certificates were issued by the Competent Authority, namely, the Special Tahsildar (ADW) by mentioning therein that the petitioners were entitled to get the preference in the matter of public employment as per the Government order. He would further contend that unless or until the certificates issued by the Special Tahsildar are cancelled by the higher authority, it is obligatory on the part of the third respondent to register the same and he need not act on the instructions given by the second respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that without any notice to the petitioners and affording an opportunity of hearing, the third respondent refused to register the certificates based on the second respondents communication, which is not even furnished to the petitioners. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order of this Court made in W.P.No.32675 of 2007 dated 11.10.2007, wherein, this Court has directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in respect of registering the name in the Employment Exchange. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that as per the Departmental procedure vide SEECM No.20/94 dated 31.03.1994, the certificates issued by the Special Tahsildar were referred to the District Collector, who, in turn, vide his proceedings dated 19.08.2006 informed that the priority certificates submitted by the petitioners were not in accordance with the norms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.188 P&A.R. Department dated 28.12.1976 and based on which, the third respondent refused to register the same in the Employment Exchange. He would further contend that the petitioners have their own houses and lands at their native places, which they purchased on 25.10.2005. Unless they establish their stand clearly as to their entitlement for prior certificates, their request would not bind on the third respondent in considering registration of the certificates. Therefore, the action of the third respondent cannot be faulted with. 7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material documents and the relevant Government orders. 8. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are land owners, who purchased lands on 25.10.2005 and the same were sought to be acquired for the purpose of free distribution of house sites to the poor persons of the Kollakaravadi village. Accordingly, the lands were acquired and handed over to the Special Tahsildar, Polur on 20.03.2006. The rate for acquisition is fixed at Rs.13,000/-per acre and the cents of lands acquired by the competent authority are to the extent of 0.23 cents, 0.25 cents, 0.26 cents and 0.27 cents, respectively as stated supra. Therefore, the Special Tahsildar, who is the competent authority as delegated by the District Collector, issued certificates to the petitioners on 08.06.2006 certifying that the lands of the petitioners, who are the owners, were acquired for the purpose of free distribution of house sites to the poor persons, they have no other lands in the Survey Number and they have no other mode of income except the lands acquired from them. It is also certified that because of the acquisition of lands, their livelihood is very much affected. 9. As per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 28.12.1976, the priority list in regard to the provision of employment assistance through Employment Exchanges was re-issued in G.O.Ms.No.1873 Public (Services-J) dated 10.08.197. Subsequently, additions and deletions of certain categories of persons have been ordered in the further Government Orders. The Government of India, in their order have given a higher priority for disabled Ex-Servicemen and for the members of the family of Defence Services Personnel killed in action. The Government has therefore examined in consultation with the Director of Employment and Training, Madras the question of further revising and reissuing the order of priority of the lines of the priorities laid down by the Government of India. The Government has therefore examined in consultation with the Director of Employment and Training, Madras the question of further revising and reissuing the order of priority of the lines of the priorities laid down by the Government of India. In suppression of the orders issued in the Government Order, as subsequently amended, the Government directed that the order of priorities in regard to provision of employment assistance through Employment Exchanges shall be as indicated in the annexure to this Government Order. The rule of reservation shall be made applicable to all vacancies whether they are filled by priority or non-priority category. 10. In that Government Order, it is mentioned that the members of the Family (including members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled 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 wholly on the lands acquired and from among them to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who may be eligible for employment 11. Further, in the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.656 dated 29.06.1978, it was clarified that the members of families whose lands have been acquired for Government purpose 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 G.O.Ms.No.188. Subsequently, as per the letter of the Government of India dated 16.01.1977, the Government of India, in their letter, have requested 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 has examined the above suggestion in detailed consultation with the Director of Employment and Training, Madras and passed the following orders: i) All the Public Sector Undertakings may recruit without reference to Employment Exchange at least one member of each family which is displaced on account of acquisition of lands for any projects of such Public Sector Undertakings etc., provided 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 cultivating of the land or the cultivating tenants or Varamdars. iii) The appointing authorities concerned of the respective public sector undertakings etc. Shall themselves ascertain and decide whether the land was 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 land lords. 12. It is seen from the documents that the Special Tahsildar issued the Land Acquisition Certificates on the basis of material verification and after examining the entire position, based on which, the petitioners have approached the third respondent to register their names. The third respondent on his own referred the matter to the District Collector for verification of the genuineness of the certificates. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai in his letter No.K1/41038/2006 dated 19.08.2006 had informed the third respondent that the priority certificates submitted by the petitioners were not in accordance with the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.188 P&A.R. Department dated 28.12.1976 and further directed the third respondent vide orders dated 19.08.2006 not to register their names in the priority category, which was also duly communicated to the petitioners by the third respondent on 14.05.2007. 13. On scrutiny of the entire records and pleadings of the parties, it appears that the certificates issued by the third respondent are based on the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.188 P&A.R. Department dated 28.1.1976. It is most prerogative on the part of the respondents 2 & 3 to act in accordance with the said Government Order after issuing notice to the parties concerned and affording an opportunity of hearing them and thereafter, an order of rejection can be passed, but to the contrary, the third respondent on his own suo moto referred the matter to the second respondent for verification of the genuineness of the certificates issued by the Special Tahsildar (ADW) and duly acted upon the orders of the second respondent, the District Collector. Therefore, the action of the third respondent is not only contrary to the established rules of law, but also violative of principles of natural justice, since the aggrieved persons were not put on notice and not given the opportunity of hearing. 14. Therefore, the action of the third respondent is not only contrary to the established rules of law, but also violative of principles of natural justice, since the aggrieved persons were not put on notice and not given the opportunity of hearing. 14. In the instant case, the third respondent has taken into account the orders of the District Collector and acted on the same without prior notice to the petitioners. Therefore, it is ex-facie apparent that the action of the third respondent is arbitrary in the eye of law. 15. For the foregoing discussions, after perusing the materials on record as also analysing the various Government Orders, I am of the considered view that the communication sent to the petitioners by the third respondent dated 14.05.2007 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the third respondent herein for a fresh consideration by issuing notice to the petitioners and after following the procedures contemplated under law. If any decision is taken in favour of the petitioners, the third respondent is directed to register their names in the Employment Exchange under the priority category and sponsor their names for future recruitment. In the net result, this writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.