ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 27.04.2015 inviting “Request for Proposal” for economic development and entry point activities, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement issued on 01.03.2009 submitted his proposal and letter dated 30.12.2011 was issued whereunder, the petitioner was appointed as “facilitator” and he was to prepare Detailed Survey Report on the basis of Base line survey/Data collection/Collation Infrastructure for 10 villages. Thereafter, the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Schedule Caste Cooperative Development Corporation (JSSCCDC) issued instructions vide letter dated 22.05.2012 to the petitioner regarding Model Gram Yojana. Vide letter dated 28.01.2015, the Deputy Secretary, Welfare Department informed the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Schedule Caste Cooperative Development Corporation Limited that the petitioner has been appointed as a “facilitator” still, advertisement dated 27.04.2015 has been issued by “JSSCCDC Ltd.” inviting “Request for Proposal” for 22 villages. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though vide order dated 30.12.2011 the petitioner was appointed “facilitator” and the work relating to 10 villages was allotted to the petitioner, without terminating the work order and without cancelling the earlier advertisement dated 01.03.2009, the respondentJSSCCDC Ltd. has issued a fresh advertisement for the same work. It is submitted that, once the work order dated 22.05.2012 has been issued to the petitioner, without indicating any reason and without alleging breach, the impugned advertisement dated 27.04.2015 cannot be issued. 4. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 vehemently opposes and refers to advertisement dated 27.04.2015 and submits that, the two advertisements are entirely different in as much as, the first advertisement was issued with respect to 10 villages and the petitioner has been selected as “facilitator” for the work for preparation of D.P.R. in view of the Detailed Survey Report on the basis of Base line survey/Data collection/Collation Infrastructure gap whereas, the present advertisement relates to construction of 22 model villages. An entirely different procedure has been adopted in the subsequent advertisement dated 27.04.2015 which is apparent from a bare look at the selection process indicated in the said advertisement itself. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 30.12.2011 the petitioner was selected as a “facilitator” and work for preparation of Detailed Survey Report has been given to the petitioner. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 30.12.2011 the petitioner was selected as a “facilitator” and work for preparation of Detailed Survey Report has been given to the petitioner. The advertisement dated 01.03.2009 was issued for selecting a Mother N.G.O which would facilitate the work of the Corporation. The responsibilities of the “facilitator” are indicated in the advertisement itself. A perusal of letter dated 30.12.2011 would indicate that out of 10 villages, survey of 3 villages namely, Karam Toli (Ranchi), Murga Danga (Pakur) and Logai (Godda) was yet to be completed. It is further mentioned that selection of 7 villages was still under consideration. Letter dated 28.01.2015 refers to letter dated 30.12.2011 which indicates that the petitioner has been appointed as a “facilitator”. The mere fact that the petitioner has been selected as a “facilitator” would not give a right to the petitioner to claim award of work in question. As noticed above, advertisement dated 01.03.2009 was for selecting “Mother N.G.O” which was required to prepare Detail Survey Report and perform other functions. Letter dated 30.12.2011 only indicates that the work for preparation of Detailed Survey Report was entrusted to the petitioner. A mere anticipation of allotment of work cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation. Letter dated 30.12.2011 cannot be said to have conferred absolute legal right in the petitioner to claim award of work mentioned in advertisement dated 27.04.2015. The advertisement dated 27.04.2015 gives a detail procedure for award of work in question. The work under advertisement dated 27.04.2015 is “Entry point activities” for Model Villages. The selection of N.G.O for the said work for 22 villages in which survey has been conducted, is an entirely different subject. “In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors.” reported in (2005) 1 SCC 625 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, “legitimate expectation is different from anticipation or disappointment”. 6. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the respondent no. 3 is directed to make payment to the petitioner for the work entrusted to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.05.2012, if already not paid. 6. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the respondent no. 3 is directed to make payment to the petitioner for the work entrusted to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.05.2012, if already not paid. It would be open to the petitioner to participate in the bid vide the Advertisement dated 27.04.2015 and it would be open to the respondents to give preference to the petitioner if, two bids of similar value are received.