JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, C.J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of this writ petition, petitioner-Union of India, has challenged the order dated 27.06.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 553 of 2002 whereby the learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. with direction to the petitioners (respondents therein) to consider the grievances of the applicant and dispose of his representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant had filed the O.A. claiming that the lands recorded in the name of his family were acquired for construction of Railway Link Project and hence he had made representations for an employment in Group-C or Group-D post in the Railways. Such representation was not received, but the learned Tribunal issued directions to consider the applicant's case as land oustee candidate for appointment to any posts. It is submitted that the Tribunal has passed an ex- parte order without hearing the petitioners, that too in a land acquisition proceeding, where the Railways has no such provision for giving appointment on rehabilitation, such erroneous order could not have been passed by the Tribunal without ascertaining the relevant policies of the Railways. 4. We have gone through the records and the order passed by the Tribunal. In a land acquisition proceeding, the Tribunal could not have directed the petitioners to consider the representation of the applicant and grant necessary relief. In our considered opinion, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the cases of the persons those who are in employment or look for an employment under any law and not to decide entitlement of the land oustees for employment, which is not supported by any statutory provisions. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Misc. Cases, pending, if any stand disposed of accordingly.