IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2571 of 2011 SATYENDRA PRASAD ROY, son of Kameshwar Prasad Roy, resident of village Mahesh Chapra, Police Station- Maker, District- Saran, presently posted as Assistant Controller, Weight & Measure, Gopaolganj, Marwari Mohalla, Gopalganj…….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE M.D.,BIHAR URBAN INFRASTRUE Development Corporation Ltd., 303, 3rd Floor, Maurya Tower Complex, Budha Marg, patna.1. 2. General Manager (Administration), Bihar Urban Infrastrcture Development Corporation Ltd., 303, 3rd Floor, Maurya Tower Complex, Budha Marg, Patna.1………… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Md. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate. For respondents: None. ---------- 2. 9.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction on the authorities of the respondent Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Patna to appoint the petitioner on deputation on the post of Project Director under the said Corporation. Admittedly in terms of the advertisement dated 14.7.2010, the qualification for appointment on the said post has been fixed as “In-service, Graduate Civil Engineering with at least 10 years experience in Infrastructure Development Works”. From a perusal of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner’s experience in Infrastructure Development Work was only for the period from 1.4.1993 to 18.7.1996 in the private sector. Thereafter, he had joined the Bihar - 2 - Agricultural Service on 14.2.1997 as Assistant Controller, Weight and Measures & Marketing and continues to hold the same position till date. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner’s experience as Assistant Controller, Weight and Measure can be considered as one in Infrastructure Development Works. Evidently, the petitioner is not qualified for the said post in terms of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other persons have been appointed on the said post who, according to him, do not fulfil the relevant qualification. From the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner is unable to satisfy the Court that the same is the case. In any view of the matter, the issue of discrimination by invoking Article 14 of the Constitution can only be raised, if the petitioner is able to show that he has a legal right in the matter. In view of the fact that the petitioner does not have the necessary qualification, it is evident that he has no legal right for being appointed on the said post on deputation basis. Thus, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the equality clause under Article 14 of the - 3 - Constitution. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )