JUDGMENT Honble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 2.11.2006. The second prayer is also for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Trainee in pursuance of an appointment letter dated 8.2.1999. 2. The petitioner claims to be qualified in Mechanical Engineering and states that because his land was acquired for setting up of the respondent corporation, he is entitled to be given a job. In fact the petitioner placed on record a letter of appointment dated 8.2.1999 issued by the respondent corporation appointing him as a trainee but the said letter of appointment according to the petitioner, has not been given effect to. 3. The present petition, in my opinion, is not maintainable on the following grounds : firstly the petitioner does not disclose that the respondent corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to give to the petitioner a right to maintain the petition; secondly in the case of Ravindra Kumar v. S.D.M., 2004 (4) ESC 2354 (All). Full Bench of our Court has held that the land looser has no right to a job; thirdly so called letter of appointment is dated 8.2.1999. The petitioner has been sitting with this letter of appointment for the last almost eight years. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322, has held that mere making of representations to the authority concerned cannot justify a belated approach to the authority concerned and for reasons of laches also, the petitioner is also not entitled to any relief. 4. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. ———