JUDGMENT 1. By consent of parties, this appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for hearing. 2. This appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order passed by a Learned Judge of this Court on 31st January, 2000 in W.P. No. 19033 (W) of 1999 by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was rejected. 3. Admittedly, the land belonging to the writ petitioner or his family members was acquired by the State Government at the instance of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (In short CESC) Ltd. to set up one of its undertakings on the said land. It is also an admitted position that compensation pursuant to the order of acquisition was duly paid to the writ petitioner or to his family members. A writ petition out of which the present appeal arises, was moved by the writ petitioner/appellant for a direction upon the CESC Ltd. to give a job to the writ petitioner or to one of his family members on the ground that they were land losers. 4. This writ petition was rejected by the Trial Court against which the present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant. 5. We have heard Mr. Samanta, appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner, Mr. Utpal Basu for the CESC Ltd. and Mr. Soumen Dasgupta for the State-respondent. We have also considered the materials on record including the order under challenge in this appeal. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, we are of the view that the Learned Trial Judge rightly rejected the writ petition of the writ petitioner/appellant on the ground that CESC Ltd. cannot be directed by the writ Court to offer job to the writ petitioner/appellant or to one of his family members as, for the purpose of giving such direction, CESC Ltd. cannot be construed to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In this case, however, the writ petitioner/appellant relied on a policy of the State Government Establishments, State Government Undertakings, Quasi Government Undertakings and Local Bodies. If this policy can be made applicable in the case of CESC Ltd., then there would be no difficulty for us to direct the CESC Ltd. to offer a job either to the writ petitioner/appellant or to one of his family members. If this policy can be made applicable in the case of CESC Ltd., then there would be no difficulty for us to direct the CESC Ltd. to offer a job either to the writ petitioner/appellant or to one of his family members. In our view, the Government Policy cannot be applied to the case of CESC Ltd. as the CESC Ltd. is neither a State Government Establishment nor a State Government Undertaking. It is also, in our view, neither a Quasi Government Undertaking nor a Local Body. It is nobody's case that the CESC Ltd. is a State or an Establishment of the State Government. It was also not contended before us that CESC Ltd. is a State Government Undertaking and nor it was contended before us that it was a Quasi Government Undertaking. It is also an admitted position that the writ petitioner/ appellant has not contended before us that CESC Ltd. is a Local Body. Admittedly, the CESC Ltd. is a Public Limited Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 which, though, supplies electricity and as such a Public Limited Organisation, but by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a Local Body. In order to discharge the function under the Statute, the CESC Ltd. can be considered to be a Statutory Body acting under the Statute and if the CESC Ltd. acts in contravention of any such statutory provision being a Public Limited Organisation, in that case, violation of Statute by the CESC Ltd. may be rectified by the writ Court, but in its internal management, it is admittedly a private one and, therefore, the writ Court cannot pass direction to it for giving a job to the writ petitioner or to his family members as the writ petitioner became land-losers after the acquisition of their land. 6. That being the position, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. 7. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.