ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has been preferred for directing the respondent Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. and its authorities to cancel the appointment of the respondent no. 5 alleging that he had obtained the employment on the basis of the land certificate no. 52/84/T(Talsa) procured by illegal means despite having no relationship with the petitioner or any authorization on her behalf. 3. The short fact of the case are that the land of the petitioner's father Budhu Tanti was acquired by the respondent Corporation in the year 1984 for Turandih mines and compensation was paid to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that she had two sons and one daughter and her son who was 18 years of age at the time of acquisition, was eligible for Government job as the land looser. The petitioner contends that the displacement certificate no. 22/84/T was never given to her or her son despite approaching the office of the respondents and no employment in lieu of the acquisition of the land was given. Finally, as a result of correspondence made by the respondent Corporation in the year 2003, the petitioner appeared before them and came to know that the private respondent-Ramchandra Hansda (Respondent No. 5) has obtained the job by producing the displacement certificate of the petitioner on the basis of the fake authorization. The petitioner denies to have issued any authorization letter in favour of the said person, who according to her, is not her relative. On the representation of the petitioner, respondent no. 5 was asked to show cause by the respondent Corporation about the validity of the appointment and the authorization letter, to which the respondent no. 5 has filed his show-cause which is contained at Annexure-7. 4. The respondent Corporation as well as respondent no. 5 have appeared and filed their respective counter affidavits. The respondent no. 5 in his reply, has stated that he was appointed in the Establishment on the basis of the certificate dated 1st of May, 1985 issued by the petitioner recommending appointment of the respondent no. 5 in lieu of acquisition of the land. On the basis of the nomination by the petitioner in presence of Mukhia of Karandih Panchayat which was duly approved and accepted by the respondent Corporation after inquiry, he also faced selection process before being appointed in the year 1993. 5 in lieu of acquisition of the land. On the basis of the nomination by the petitioner in presence of Mukhia of Karandih Panchayat which was duly approved and accepted by the respondent Corporation after inquiry, he also faced selection process before being appointed in the year 1993. It is the further case of the private respondent that the said objection has been made after ten years in the year 2003 by the petitioner and the petitioner has raised a disputed questions of fact whether thumb impression put on authorization given by her (Annexure-R-5A) is her or not, and the writ court should not enter into the disputed questions of fact. The respondent Uranium Corporation of India have also supported the stand of the private respondent and submit that on the basis of the authorization letter given by the petitioner, respondent no. 5 was appointed in the year 1993 after facing interview and selection process. According to the respondent no. 5, he has since been granted promotion. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records. The private respondent appears to have been appointed on the basis of the authorization letter of the petitioner in the year 1993 In lieu of the acquisition of the land of the petitioner. Though, acquisition took place in the year 1984, but the petitioner sat over the matter till 2003. The respondent Corporation have also stated that the petitioner never disclosed before the Corporation that she has two sons and one daughter at the time of acquisition process. The petitioner has approached this court in the year 2005 raising question about the validity of the appointment of the respondent no. 5 in the year 1993 on the basis of the nomination made by the petitioner herself. The question raised in the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner relating to the validity of the authorization is also a disputed questions of fact. 6. In view of the totality of the circumstances and the facts discussed herein above, this court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction granting relief to the petitioner. This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.