THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 29068 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of 1st and 2nd respondents in not nominating 2nd petitioner as the nominee of 1st petitioner for the purpose of employment in 3rd respondent Corporation as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct 1st and 2nd respondents to include 2nd petitioner’s name as nominee of 1st petitioner in the land oustees’ list and to issue land oustee certificate to 2nd petitioner for employment in 3rd respondent Corporation. According to the petitioners, 1st petitioner is the resident of Laxmipuram, Elykulapally Gate, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. His land to an extent of Ac.10-00 in Sy.No.45, situated at Poratpalli was acquired for establishment of Super Thermal Power Project by the National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C), in the years 1979 and 1980. Due to the said acquisition, ultimately, he became displaced. While acquiring the land, the authorities contemplated a scheme to provide employment to one of the family members on priority consideration, in the category of displaced persons/land oustees, in 3rd respondent Organization. The land of 1st petitioner was acquired under Award No.447/79-1. The revenue authorities have prepared a list of land oustees, for the purpose of providing employment, which was approved by 1st respondent, and the same was sent to 3rd respondent for the purpose of employment to the land oustees. However, 1st petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground that he is not eligible for appointment to any post, in view of he being over aged. Therefore, the 1st petitioner seems to have filed an application before the revenue authorities to permit him to nominate 2nd petitioner, who is his son-in-law, for the purpose of providing employment under the displaced/land oustees’ scheme. According to the 1st petitioner, he has no male issues and, therefore, he brought 2nd petitioner as illetum son-in-law to his house. An illetum son-in-law takes possession of a son. Therefore, the petitioner requested the authorities to permit him to nominate 2nd petitioner in place of 1st petitioner, for the purpose of providing employment. The said application was not considered. Hence, the writ petition. In the counter filed by the respondents, at one point they have stated that no such application was filed by 1st petitioner and at another point they have stated that such application should have been made within one year from the date of preparing the list and 1st petitioner has not made any such application, therefore, the request of 1st petitioner to permit his son-in-law i.e. 2nd petitioner to be nominated, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 17100 of 1993 dated 16.12.1993, wherein it was held, “Having regard to the above stated circumstances, I think it just and proper to direct the petitioner No.1 to file a petition before the District Collector, Karimnagar seeking replacement of nominee i.e. third petitioner in the place of second petitioner. On filing such petition, the District Collector is directed to accord permission to change the nominee of the first petitioner i.e. third petitioner (Kandula Sathaiah) in the place of second petitioner (Kandula Poshetty) after verifying that Kandula Poshetty is not given any job in pursuance of the Memo dated 6.2.1993 in the land oustee quota” and submitted that the case of the petitioner also needs to be considered on the same lines. Be that as it may, according to the 1st petitioner, he has no male issues, therefore, he has nominated his son-in-law as the nominee for the purpose of providing employment by 3rd respondent- Organization. When 1st petitioner states that 2nd petitioner is his illetum son-in-law, 2nd petitioner deserves to be considered for being nominated in place of 1st petitioner for providing employment, since 1st petitioner is not entitled under the Scheme of displaced/land oustees, due to over age. Since the fact that 1st petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.10-00 in S.No.45 of Poratpalli was acquired and his name was included in the land oustees’ list is not in dispute, the respondents are directed to consider nominating 2nd petitioner in place of 1st petitioner for the purpose of providing employment in 3rd respondent – Organization, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 4-02-2010. MVB.