JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J: In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on suitable Group D post reserved in the respondent Corporation for land loser/displaced person appertaining to Khata No.47, Plot no.288/1 and 288/4 belonging to the ancestors of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts, as has been delineated in the writ application is that land measuring an area of 59 decimils, appertaining to Khata No.47, Plot no.288/1 and 288/4 was recorded in the name of the ancestral grandfather of the petitioner. The Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter in short ‘DVC’) for establishment of Chandrapura Thermal Power Station acquired the lands including the name of the ancestor of the petitioner. It has been averred in the writ application that despite acquisition of land neither rehabilitation nor compensation was offered to the petitioner against the acquisition of land. As per the guidelines of the respondents-Corporation, 30% of the available vacancies for unskilled categories was fixed for displaced persons. Accordingly, a panel was prepared for displaced person for their appointment on rehabilitation ground. It has been averred in the writ application that though the name of the ancestor found place in the list of the displaced persons neither the petitioner got appointment nor he got compensation in the respondent corporation. Similarly situated person approached this Court in CWJC No.1828 of 1998 (R) for appointment against the vacancies reserved for displaced persons. Accordingly the said writ petition was disposed of on 24.09.1999 with direction to the DVC authorities for verification of the records by the district administration in respect of claims of the land losers. In the list prepared by the respondents, the name of ancestor of the petitioner found place but for the reasons best known to them the petitioner has not been offered for appointment. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the petitioner submitted representation vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition but the said representation fell on the deaf ears. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. 3. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the petitioner submitted representation vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition but the said representation fell on the deaf ears. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the respondents-corporation has appointed several displaced persons whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of establishment of Chandrapura Thermal Power Station but petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination in breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the empaneled list of displaced persons though the name of the petitioner found place as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition, but the respondents by adopting a pick and choose method has failed to consider the genuine case of the petitioner. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a supplementary counter affidavit dated 07.12.2009 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that the lands were acquired for establishment of Chandrapura Thermal Power Station during 1950-60 i.e. more than 50 years back and the petitioner is moving this Hon’ble Court after more than 50 years of the alleged acquisition of his land, therefore, on this ground the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the delay and laches. It has further been submitted that in pursuance to direction passed in the contempt petition on 13.05.2004, the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro was directed to verify the list of displaced persons as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Further, it has been submitted that the Deputy Commissioner vide Memo no.33 dated 13.03.2008 sent the name of the final list of the displaced persons whose lands were acquired for establishment of C.T.P.S along with the letter of the Circle Officer, Bermo (Bokaro) dated 5.2.2008 with which a list of 137 persons was enclosed as per Annexure-C to the counter affidavit and in the said list the name of the petitioner is not mentioned. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-DVC apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has vociferously submitted that after lapse of more than 50 years the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-DVC apart from reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit has vociferously submitted that after lapse of more than 50 years the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. Moreover, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the land oustee list as prepared by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2008, therefore, at this distance of time, the claim of the petitioner being barred by limitation is liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. Having given my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner, due to the following reasons stated hereinbelow: (I) In the aforesaid writ application, the petitioner has come up only for appointment as land oustee as per the policy of the respondent company under rehabilitation and resettlement policy in vogue. The provision of employment is always subject to utility of land and the extent of land acquired. From perusal of records, it appears that from the date of acquisition of the land, many decades have elapsed. So far as providing employment at this belated stage is concerned, the case cannot be kept open for indefinite period of time and therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered at this distance of time for employment as land oustee or as displaced person. (II) The view of this Court gets fortified by the order of this Court passed in W.P(S) No.2877 of 2015 (Dwijen Mahto vs. Damodar Valley Corporation), L.P.A. No. 248 of 2017 (Dil Mohammad vs. Damodar Valley Corporation) and in W.P.(S) No.4138 of 2012 (Talkeshwar Baskey vs. Damodar Valley Corporation) with W.P (S) No.4186 of 2012 (Dil Mohammad vs. Damodar Valley Corporation). (III) The view of this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in [2008 (3) JCR 152 (SC)] (Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Daby Lal Mahto & Ors.) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 11, has held as under: “11. Be that as it may, it is now high time to put an end to the litigation. Be that as it may, it is now high time to put an end to the litigation. It is an admitted fact that the project was completed way back in 1966 and even after more than 40 years of the completion of the project, people whose land was acquired for the purposes of the project are still litigating for getting employment. This is not at all warranted. At the relevant time, the intention of the Government was to rehabilitate the landless people whose lands had been acquired and to provide employment to one member of the displaced family so that they could maintain the family so displaced. It was not at all the intention of the Government to distribute this kind of largesse on an indefinite basis. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.” 7. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the relief sought for, does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.