Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is in Hindi. Mr. Ajay Tripathy, Addl. SCCG raises an objection regarding its maintainability. He points out that rule 1 under Chapter III of the Patna High Court Rules provided that every application to the High Court shall be by a petition written in the English language. Mr. Tripathy also expressed his inability to file a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents stating that he was unable to follow all the statements made in the writ petition exactly and clearly. 3. Notwithstanding Mr. Tripathys objection which cannot be said to be unfounded, this court proceed to hear the counsel appearing in support of this writ petition. On hearing, it is found that the writ petition is without merit or substance and can be disposed of even without deciding the question of its maintainability and asking the respondents to file any counter affidavit. 4. However, the disposal of this case on merits does not mean any approval by this court of filing writ petition in Hindi and this order may not be taken as a precedent for filing in future a petition in Hindi. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and its officials to give him employment on a Class IV post on the ground that a piece of land belonging to the petitioner also formed part of the total area of 12.0454 acres taken into acquisition near Phulwarisharif, Patna for the Corporation for setting up its storage tanks. According to the petitioner, a piece of land 53/4 decimals (slightly under 2 kathas) in area belonging to him also went into the acquisition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, like all the other persons whose lands were taken into acquisition, was paid due compensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. Apart from compensation, the petitioner claims employment on the ground that his land was taken into acquisition for the Corporation. 5. It may be noted here that the acquisition took place in or around 1985 and over the years a number of cases, making similar claims came before this Court. A few months ago this court dismissed a number of cases (in two or three batches) arising from the same acquisition and making similar claims as the petitioner. 6. 5. It may be noted here that the acquisition took place in or around 1985 and over the years a number of cases, making similar claims came before this Court. A few months ago this court dismissed a number of cases (in two or three batches) arising from the same acquisition and making similar claims as the petitioner. 6. It may be noted that on the request of the District Administration the Corporation had agreed to provide employment, as far as possible, to a member of each of the families whose lands were taken into acquisition. It needs to be emphasised that at no stage the Corporation agreed to provide employment to a member of each of the families whose lands were taken in acquisition. According to the Corporation, the vacancies were very limited and the Corporation agreed only to fill up those vacancies from amongst those whose lands were taken into acquisition, applying a set of criteria and judging their suitability for the available posts on the basis of oral and written tests. Admittedly, the petitioner also participated in the oral interview and the written test. However, he was not offered any employment. 7. In the earlier cases this court was told that all the available vacancies were filled up and persons who were found suitable for the posts from among those whose lands were taken into acquisition, were duly taken in employment. 8. In these circumstances, no relief, as prayed for, by the petitioner can be granted to him. This writ petition stands dismissed.