JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of present appeal, the appellants - original petitioners have challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 4/2/1999 while dealing with Special Civil Application No. 2364 of 1998, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed with writ petition of the petitioners. 2. Mr. A.Y. Kogje, counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has committed error in passing the order without going into the merits of the matter. 3. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in holding that the document at Annexure B dated 19/3/1999 is nothing but the instructions issued to Subordinate Officers in respect of the appointment made by them. 4. He contended that the learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that the Board has adopted a policy to offer employment to a dependent member of the family which looses 50% or more of its land subject to requisite qualification. He further contended that in several cases, the persons have got the employment in G.E.Board who have lost less than 50% of their land. Therefore, the criteria of 50% land loosing is not applied in all cases. 5. He contended that learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that the Board's action cannot be aid to be arbitrary or discriminatory. Even otherwise, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to facts on record and band in law, which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya contended that the now Gujarat Electricity Board is no longer Gujarat Electricity Board, the appellants can not changed the nomenclature of the respondent. 7. She contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, therefore, no interference would require by this Court. Hence, the present appeal may be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties at length and in great detail. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the documents which are on record. The learned Single Judge has made following observations in para nos. 3 & 4: 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Board entered its appearance through Learned Advocate Mr.Pandya. Ms. Desai, Learned Advocate appearing for Mr. The learned Single Judge has made following observations in para nos. 3 & 4: 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Board entered its appearance through Learned Advocate Mr.Pandya. Ms. Desai, Learned Advocate appearing for Mr. Pandya has relied upon the general standing order of the board where under it has been resolved that: "Board also approved that GEB will employ 1 person of the family losing 50% or more land of his own due to above considering his/her qualifications." She has, therefore, contended that the employment is offered to one of the members of the family which loses 50% or more of its land holding provided such person is otherwise qualified for employment. She has placed a statement on the records of the matter showing the extent of land lost by the family of the present petitioners. The statement is ordered to be taken on record. According to the said statement none of the petitioners has lost 50% or more of its land holding. 4. The communication dated 19.3.91 is nothing more than instructions issued to subordinate officers in respect of the appointments made by them. Under the said communication the Officers concerned are instructed not to make any appointment on nominal muster roll or on work charge establishment except from apprentices; on compassionate grounds; the dependent member of the land loser (the person whose land has been acquired compulsorily for the purpose of the Board) whose appointment is approved by the Board and the dependant member of the family of the retired employee of the Board. This instruction cannot confer a right to employment upon the petitioners or such other persons nor can it be said to be a promise held out to the petitioners. The communication dated 11.11.92 (Annexure E to the petition) is not relevant for the purpose of this petition. As it is narrated herein above the board has adopted a policy to offer employment to a dependant member of the family which loses 50% or more of its land holding provided such person is otherwise qualified for employment. This being the policy of the Board and the petitioners having not lost 50% or more of its land holdings they are not entitled to employment in the Board under the said policy. The Board's action cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. This being the policy of the Board and the petitioners having not lost 50% or more of its land holdings they are not entitled to employment in the Board under the said policy. The Board's action cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. In the event the petitioners have not claimed any compensation for the lands acquired they may do so, if otherwise permissible." 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that, the matter is heard almost after sixteen years. Even otherwise, merely because the subject land is adjoining to the G.E.B., contrary to policy, the appellants are not entitled to get the job.' 10. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. Since the main appeal is dismissed by this Court. No order on civil application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.