JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing/setting aside the decision contained in letter dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-7), issued by respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner No. 2 has been communicated that it is not possible to offer employment to petitioner No. 1, in view of order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 06.03.2017, in W.P.(S). No. 5077 of 2016. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to offer the employment to petitioner No. 1, as 2.006 acres of land of petitioners have been acquired by the respondents vide Land Acquisition Case No. 24/81-82 and Land Acquisition Case No. 18/81-82. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:- In the year 1981-82, the respondents have acquired 2.006 acres of land of the petitioners vide Land Acquisition Case no. 24/81-82 and Land Acquisition Case No. 18/81-82. At that point of time, the father of petitioner No. 1 was alive however, subsequently, in the year 1994, he passed away. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 15.12.1995, petitioner No. 2 made an application to the General Manager, Bhowra Area No. 11 of BCCL for giving employment to her eldest son, Ganesh Mahto but no heed was paid to her said representation. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 2 again made an application on 02.01.2013, requesting the General Manager, Bhowra Area No. 11 of BCCL to offer employment to her sons, Ganesh Mahto, Kartik Mahto and Amardeep Mahto. The petitioner No. 2, however was asked to give the name of only one person for employment. On being so asked, the petitioner No. 2 again submitted another application on 13.03.2015, claiming employment for petitioner No. 1, Kartik Mahto only. Thereafter, the file with respect to employment of petitioner No. 1, was moved from one office to another and details of lands of the petitioners acquired by the respondents and other particulars with respect to employment of petitioner No. 1, were recorded in the file on 13.04.2015 by the General Manager and respondent No. 2, wherein recommendation was made for employment to petitioner No. 1 under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy (for short “R.R. Policy”). Subsequently, a detailed note-sheet has been recorded on 05.02.2016 by the Sr. Subsequently, a detailed note-sheet has been recorded on 05.02.2016 by the Sr. Manager (Mines), whereby, the proposal was forwarded to the competent authority under R.R. Policy with respect to employment to the petitioner No. 1. The Deputy General Manager, East Jharia Area also recorded on 25.12.2016 that no employment has been offered to any of the family members of the petitioners for acquiring the land of the petitioners and hence, the case of petitioner No. 1 for employment can be considered under the R.R. Policy. The file was processed further at one or the other authorities but ultimately by the notes-sheet dated 07.06.2017 it was disclosed that because of the some order passed in W.P.(S). No. 5077 of 2016 on 06.03.2017, the case of the petitioner No. 1 for employment cannot be considered. Subsequently, the case of the petitioner No. 1 for employment has been rejected and the order to that effect was communicated to petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 16.06.2017. Upon receipt of the said letter, the petitioner No. 2 again submitted an application on 26.06.2017 for reconsideration of the case of petitioner No. 1 for giving him employment but all went in vain. Hence, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urges that the petitioner is entitled for appointment in view of Land Looser Scheme and also in view of R.R. Policy of the State Govt. Learned counsel further argues that rejecting the claim of employment to the petitioner No. 1 is illegal and arbitrary and has been done with malafide intention. From perusal of the recommendations made by the respondents in view of Annexure-4 series goes to show that petitioner No. 1 was entitled for appointment and also respondents were fully satisfied that case of the petitioner No. 1 needs consideration and as such, they recommended his case for appointment but only in the garb of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(S). No. 5077 of 2016, which is not applicable in the instant case, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for his appointment, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. No. 5077 of 2016, which is not applicable in the instant case, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for his appointment, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure-19/1 of the Rejoinder and submits that the document annexed at Annexure-19/1, which is Cost Benefit Analysis Report for the Employment of Shree Kartik Mahto in E.J. Area Bhowra against 2.03 Acres of Land, shows that respondent-BCCL is at the profit of Rs.32,69,770/-, considering the cost of land, cost of registration and employment cost for 30 years but still they have not considered the case of the petitioner No. 1 for employment for which he is fully entitled. Learned counsel emphatically argues that the case laws relied upon by the respondents is not at all applicable in the instant case as the respondents have placed incorrect facts before the Court and on the basis of incorrect facts, the order of rejection has been passed which is not applicable in the instant case. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL, vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled for appointment. Learned counsel submits that petitioner No. 1 was not even born at the time the land of his father was acquired and under the Land Looser Scheme employment for the displaced persons cannot be kept reserved on birth or attaining majority of a legal heir. It has been further argued that the recommendations of the respondents does not give surety for employment to any person, if he is not eligible for that. Merely because the case of the petitioner No. 1 was recommended, it cannot be said that an indefeasible right has accrued to him for appointment though he was not entitled for the same. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no appointment can be given dehors the rules. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no appointment can be given dehors the rules. The case of the petitioner No. 1 was rightly not considered as the mother of the petitioner No. 1 submitted the representation for employment of petitioner No. 1 after lapse of 20 years, inasmuch as the land was acquired in the year 1981-83 and the first representation was filed by her for appointment of the elder son of petitioner No. 2 in the year 1995 i.e. after lapse of 14 years. Again in the year 2013, i.e. after lapse of about 31 years, petitioner No. 2 filed representation for employment of petitioner No. 1. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was not entitled for employment at the time when the land was acquired and after lapse of more than 31 years, he cannot be offered employment. Under the Land Looser Scheme, employment for the displaced persons cannot be reserved on birth or on attaining majority of a legal heir. The petitioners are unable to establish the existence of a legal right and corresponding legal duties. It is always the matter of policy decision of the State and that does not confer any legal right on the petitioners to seek appointment. Giving employment to land looser is a matter of concession and such concession cannot be enforced in writ petition. Offering of employment and offering of payment of compensation to such land loosers was only in nature of concession and such concession cannot be enforced by a Writ Court. The State cannot be compelled to be overburdened for giving employment to those persons over and above the compensation already paid to them. 7. Allowing the said writ petition will open flood-gate for granting employment to the undeserving persons who are not entitled, as no employment can be considered dehors the rules. Consideration of employment after a long decade is not permissible in the eyes of law under Land Looser Scheme or in view of R.R. Policy of the State Govt. when the employees have already been compensated. 8. Earlier also a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in similar facts and circumstances of the case vide its order dated 30.11.2017, passed in W.P.(C). when the employees have already been compensated. 8. Earlier also a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in similar facts and circumstances of the case vide its order dated 30.11.2017, passed in W.P.(C). No. 2866 of 2015, had clearly observed that under Land Looser Scheme, employment for displaced persons cannot be reserved on birth or on attaining majority of a legal heir. 9. This Court feels satisfied that no case is made out for interference. There is no merit in the instant writ petitioner and hence, it is dismissed. 10. No order as to cost.