IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13761 of 2007 Date of Decision : March 19, 2008 Jarnail Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. M.M. KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is that directions be issued to the respondents to grant them license of Architect as has been done in the cases of other persons, who are having less qualification and experience than the petitioners. It is conceded position that the petitioners are diploma holder in Architectural Assistantship and Civil Engineering. They do not answer the qualifications prescribed by Bye-law 2(iv) and 62 read with Schedule I of Haryana Municipal Building Bye-Laws 1982 (for brevity ‘Bye- laws’). According to the bye-laws for registration as an Architect, a Bachelor degree in Architect awarded by any Indian University established by an Act of Central or State Legislature or National Diploma in Architecture awarded by All India Council for Technical Education or Degree of Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.) awarded by the Indian Institute of Technology, Civil Writ Petition No. 13761 of 2007 -2- Kharagpur etc., is required. The petitioners do not have any of the aforementioned degree or diploma. Therefore, no direction to the respondents could be issued for granting the petitioners registration as Architect. Only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that persons similarly situated to them have been granted registration and the petitioners are being deprived of the benefit on extraneous consideration. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that once Bye-law 2(iv) and 62 of the Bye-laws has prescribed specific qualification in the discipline of Architecture then a person with Diploma in Architecture Assistantship and Civil Engineering, like the petitioners cannot claim the right of registration as an Architect. The rules do not permit registration of any such person and the same cannot be claimed as a right in a Court of law. Therefore, the petitioners would not have any legal right to seek a direction from this Court to respondents for performance of a corresponding duty because there would be no legal obligation incurred by them. If any one- else against the rules have been granted registration, then the remedy lies elsewhere, but that does constitute a basis for issuance of a direction to the respondents to register the petitioners as Architect. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( SABINA ) March 19, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor