Judgment 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is against the order of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the State of Bihar, dated 1.3.2007, produced at Annexure-7 to the petition, in reply to the representation of the petitioner dated 15.5.2006, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for considering his case at par with the candidates who came to be appointed in 1995, with effect from 16.11.1995, as the recruitment process was delayed, came to be rejected. 2. The same proposition has been advanced and reiterated before us. There is no dispute about the fact that the recruitment process in 24th Judicial Services 3 came to be initiated in 1990. The petitioner came to be appointed in 2001. It is the contention of the petitioner that since during the course of recruitment process appointment of first batch was made in 1995, therefore, his appointment, though made in 2001, should be treated, at par, for all purposes, with the appointees of 1995. This contention is rejected by the Government and, in our opinion, rightly so. 3. In fact, there is no any legal right which can be enforced with the constitutional writ brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion, that this petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. Therefore, this petition shall stand dismissed.