JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Damodar Valley Corporation. 2. Petitioner no. 2 is the daughter of petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 1 initially sought appointment in Damodar Valley Corporation and now since the petitioner no. 1 had already crossed the age of superannuation he prays that the employment be given to the petitioner no. 2 who is his daughter. 3. Admitted facts in this case is that tracks of land was acquired by Damodar Valley Corporation in the year 1958-59 and the land losers or their nominees/legal heirs were supposed to be given employment. This appointment was to be given on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner of the District. The Deputy Commissioner recommended Dhaneshwar Soren showing him to be the son of the land loser. He was given appointment. This petitioner no.1 started objecting it stating that he is the living son of Kartik Manjhi and his two brothers have already dead. As per him Dhaneshwar Soren is son of one of the brothers of this petitioner no. 1 i.e. grandson of Kartik Manjhi and not son of Kartik Manjhi as wrongly mentioned. He submits that by playing fraud Dhaneshwar Soren has got appointment in Damodar Valley Corporation. 4. The petitioner no.1 thereafter preferred writ application being WP(C) No. 4256 of 2013 praying therein to set-aside the appointment of Dhaneshwar Soren and prayed that appointment be given to his daughter. Thus, the Hon’ble Court while disposing the writ application held that no directions can be given to respondent-Damodar Valley Corporation for considering the case of the petitioner and providing employment to his daughter. It has also been held that after a final decision is taken against respondent no. 5 (Dhaneshwar Soren), the petitioner may approach respondent-Damodar Valley Corporation, if permissible in law. 5. On receipt of complaint, Damodar Valley Corporation suspended Dhaneshwar Soren in 2012 itself but ultimately on 09.04.2017 Dhaneshwar Soren unfortunately expired. There is nothing on record to suggests that any inquiry had at all taken place or any legal proceeding was initiated to determine as to whether Dhaneshwar Soren had obtained employment by fraud or not. 6. The fact remains that now the petitioner no. 1 had already reached the age of superannuation and now he is claiming appointment for his daughter who is petitioner no. 6. The fact remains that now the petitioner no. 1 had already reached the age of superannuation and now he is claiming appointment for his daughter who is petitioner no. 2 in lieu of land which was acquired in the year 1958-59. The fact is also clear that there is nothing on record to suggest whether the first appointment granted to Daneshwar Soren was obtained by fraud or not. 7. Appointment against acquisition of land cannot be made hereditary and cannot be kept open till few generations in this case it will be third generation. Further when the land has been acquired in the year 1958-59 admittedly compensation has been paid to the land loser, appointment cannot be given now in the year 2025 in favour of any of the legal heirs of the land losers. This process must come to an end at some point of time 8. Further the element of fraud which the petitioner is alleging cannot be adjudicated in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which needs to be adjudicated by leading evidence as the facts are too complicated. 9. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed.