ORDER Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 29.12.2006, whereby respondents approved appointment of respondent nos. 10 to 13 and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner in lieu of land acquired by respondents-CCL. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that land of petitioner''s ancestors was taken over by respondent-CCL for '' Parej East Open Cast Project measuring an area of 11.00 acres (approx) in the name of raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto. It has further been submitted that after acquisition of land, on 31.12.1993 the compensation amount was paid to petitioner''s father to the tune of Rs. 27,193.82. It has further been averred that as per the guidelines issued by CCL to provide employment to the persons against two acres of land whose ward is matriculate or holding higher qualification in respect of non-irrigated land and three acres of land (non-irrigated) in case of nonmatriculate. But the petitioner being eligible for employment was not offered appointment under the said scheme rather four other persons, respondent Nos.10 to 13 herein have been provided employment that too without taking consent of father of the petitioner and without taking into consideration the fact that their names are not found in the genealogical table of said raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before Chief General Manager, Charhi-respondent No. 3 herein, but, it did not evoke any response. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the Geneological Chart (Annexure 3 to the writ application), issued by the Circle Officer, vide order dated 23.07.2005 it is amply clear that the petitioner is Great Grandson of Raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto, whose lands were acquired by the respondents-CCL. It has further been submitted that as per the scheme floated for employment against acquisition of land -the employment is to be provided to the descendants of the raiyat and on their denial the person(s) so nominated by the co-sharers are entitled to get employment. In the case at hand, the father of the petitioner had never given any consent for employment to any person(s). The private respondents herein only on the strength of forged signature and in collusion with the CCL officials, got the job by producing forged and fabricated documents. In the case at hand, the father of the petitioner had never given any consent for employment to any person(s). The private respondents herein only on the strength of forged signature and in collusion with the CCL officials, got the job by producing forged and fabricated documents. On the other hand, the petitioner is agitating his claim since long but the respondents-CCL did not provide employment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if it is taken on record that the petitioner has got employment in Tractors-India Limited in lieu of land acquired by T.I.L, it is pertinent to note here that the land which was acquired by T.I.L was self-acquired property of father of the petitioner and it was not at all the ancestral land of the petitioner. Here, the petitioner is agitating his grievance on limited scope that if share of the land of father of the petitioner is acquired by CCL, the petitioner is entitled to get employment against that acquired land and merely because petitioner is working in T.I.L, it does not give any vested right to CCL to deny employment to petitioner and give employment to the respondent Nos. 10 to 13 and furthermore, the Guidelines offering employment against acquisition of land nowhere says that if anybody is working with any organization he would not be offered employment. As a matter of fact, the respondents-CCL on their own whims denied employment to the petitioner instead thereof provided employment to respondent Nos. 10 to 13. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL submitted that management considers only such persons who have been nominated by way of consent from all the living co-sharers of the. land in question and who fulfill all the criteria as laid down in existing '' Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of Coal India Limited. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was not at all nominated for employment against land at any point of time. On the other hand, consent in form of Affidavit was given by all the cosharers for nomination for employment to private respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it is true that earlier vide application dated 14.08.2005 the father of the petitioner objected regarding his consent for employment against land to these respondent Nos. On the other hand, consent in form of Affidavit was given by all the cosharers for nomination for employment to private respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it is true that earlier vide application dated 14.08.2005 the father of the petitioner objected regarding his consent for employment against land to these respondent Nos. 10 to 13 but subsequently he had given his written consent along with other co-sharers in the form of Affidavit duly sworn before Notary Public, Hazaribagh for providing employment to Respondent Nos. 10 to 13. Under the circumstances, after giving consent to these providing employment and they are working since long, the petitioner is not at all entitled to get any equitable relief from this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 10 to 13 submitted that petitioner''s grandfather has got six sons and in lieu of land so acquired by the CCL employment was to be given to all six brothers or their relations/awardees on the recommendation of these six brothers. It has further been submitted that the land was acquired by the Government for CCL as well as for West Bokaro Colliery, TISCO and for that purpose, petitioner''s brother and father all have got employment; hence now there is no question for getting appointment so far petitioner is concerned. It has further been averred that the private respondents have been duly appointed as per the scheme floated by the respondents-CCL after getting writing consent of awardees. 6. From the pleadings available on record, there is no denial of the fact that for '' Parej East Open Cast Project- , the respondents-CCL acquired a chunk of land which includes the land, measuring an area of 11.00 acres (approx), of raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto who is the ancestor of the petitioner. Furthermore, from the Geneological Chart, annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ application, issued by the Circle Officer vide order dated 23.07.2005 it reveals that the petitioner is Great Grandson of Raiyat-Jay Lal Mahto. Hence, the petitioner fulfils one of the criteria for getting employment in lieu of land acquired for the said project, as per the scheme floated by the respondents-CCL. But it was not the only condition or it was not suffice to get employment as besides that consent of co-sharers was also required, which appears from the pleadings available on record that the petitioner had not. 7. But it was not the only condition or it was not suffice to get employment as besides that consent of co-sharers was also required, which appears from the pleadings available on record that the petitioner had not. 7. On the other hand, the respondents-CCL have come up with a concrete case that besides other co-sharers the father of the petitioner had also given his consent for providing employment to private respondents. Though at a relevant point of time, the father of the petitioner denied his consent but later on he gave his consent, which is supported by Affidavit sworn before Notary Public. Learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed this fact stating that it was a forged and fabricated documents only to secure employment by the private respondents. 8. Be that as it may be, this Court cannot go into the disputed question of fact. Moreover, it is no more res integra that the disputed question of facts regarding veracity or genuineness of a document cannot be effectually adjudicated by the Writ Court.Therefore, the reliefs sought for in the writ application is I thoroughly misconceived, illegal and unsustainable. 9. View of the Court gets fortified by the decision rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 168 : ( AIR 2009 SC 571 ). 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the writ application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ application will not preclude the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to verify the genuinitiy of the document, in particular so-called '' consent letter in question, if so legally advised. In that eventuality, if any application is filed by the petitioner before any appropriate forum, the said forum shall decide the case independently strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the writ application.