IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12881 of 2025 Rojalini Sahoo and another …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Nirmal Chandra Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Party (s) Mr. G. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 12.05.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Rojalinin Sahoo and Bishnusen Pradhan for a direction to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioners for employment in the MCL as per the R&R Policy, 2006 under Annexure-4 and the decision of the proceedings of RPDAC Meeting dated 13.02.2020 under Annexure-6, taking into consideration the recommendation made by the Staff Officer (L&R), MCL, Bharatpur Area under Annexure-5, which is dated 18.02.2021. In the note sheet dated 18.02.2021, the Staff Officer (L&R), MCL, Bharatpur Area it has been suggested that a decision is required to be taken for eligibility for employment benefit in respect of petitioner no.2, who is the son-in-law of Duryodhan Sahoo as nominee/land oustee and it was submitted to the General Manager, MCL Bharatpur Area for onward transmission to General Manager (L&R), MCL. Though it is the case of the petitioners that such a note sheet has been prepared on 18.02.2021 and the General Manager (L&R), MCL was supposed to take a decision and the same has not yet been done, but the present writ petition was filed much belatedly in 2025. Moreover, in the present writ petition, it is stated that since the petitioner no.2 has become over-aged, in his place, the case of Rojalini Sahoo( petitioner No 1), who is the daughter of Duryodhan Sahoo, should be considered for employment in the MCL as per R&R Policy, 2006. From the documents filed, we find that there was no such recommendation in favour Rojalini Sahoo, the petitioner no.1, rather a decision was required to be taken in the case of petitioner no.2. Therefore, the prayer in this writ petition that the MCL authorities to consider the case of petitioner no.1 instead of petitioner no.2, taking into account the age factor of petitioner no.2, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid stands dismissed. Swarna/Ashok ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S. S. Mishra) Judge Designation: Secretary