JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.09.2004 by which direction has been issued to initiate a fresh selection process for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in Kosida Anganwadi Centre in the district of Jagatsinghpur. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that an advertisement dated 5.7.2000 was issued inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Kosida Anganwadi Centre. The advertisement did not provide for any cut off date for the purpose of eligibility, so far as the age is concerned. The Respondent No. 1/Petitioner, Smt. Kalyani Das also submitted the application, however, her candidature was not considered being under age. She filed the writ petition seeking direction that her case may also be considered. The writ petition was entertained and interim) stay was granted not to proceed with the selection process. Ultimately the writ petition was disposed of vide impugned Judgment and order issuing a direction to initiate a selection process de novo. Hence this appeal. 3. The basic question which arises for consideration is as to whether the said original writ Petitioner could claim consideration of her candidature as she was not 21 years of age as on 1.1.2000, though she had completed the age on 25th August, 2000, i.e. the date fixed for holding the selection. Learned Single Judge had not entered into the merit of the case. However, both the contesting parties are interested that matter requires adjudication on merit and it is not enough to issue direction to hold selection process de novo. In fact while making advertisement for inviting application the cut off date in this regard was not mentioned. However, it is provided therein that the candidate should not below 21 years of age. Therefore, the candidature of the writ Petitioner was rejected. 4. In ordinary course, the eligibility including the age etc. has to be considered as on the date the selection process commences or in some cases as on the last date of submission of the application forms unless the statutory Rules/circulars/guidelines provide otherwise. 5. Therefore, the candidature of the writ Petitioner was rejected. 4. In ordinary course, the eligibility including the age etc. has to be considered as on the date the selection process commences or in some cases as on the last date of submission of the application forms unless the statutory Rules/circulars/guidelines provide otherwise. 5. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process comes into existence on the date the applications are invited and any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application, has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification. Therefore, the eligibility criteria to be applied in any selection process is the law existing on the last date of submission of the applications. 6. In Y.V. Rangaiah and Others Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, ; A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and Another, ; P. Ganeshwar Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, ; and P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, ; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that candidates have to be assessed for selection as per the eligibility criteria existing on the date of advertisement of vacancies for the reason that selection process starts with advertisement and all those persons who apply in response to the same, would be eligible to be considered. 7. The Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others held as under: It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date. 8. In U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Another Vs. Alpana the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a large number of its earlier Judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commission though that was a case where result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. Alpana the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a large number of its earlier Judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commission though that was a case where result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of the applications, a candidate, whose result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible. 9. In State of M.P. and Others Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Others the Apex Court examined a case where during process of selection, the Rules were amended but subsequently the Commission/State abandoned the selection process and advertised vacancies afresh to be filled up in accordance with the amendment. The Hon'bie Supreme Court upheld the action of the State on the ground that the persons, who had applied earlier, had not acquired any vested right, therefore, the State's action was justified. 10. In Harpal Kaur Chahah (Smt) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules. 11. In State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the case for promotion, held that the eligibility for promotion must be as in the year when the vacancies arose, but that was not a case of direct recruitment. 12. In Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be adjudged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established proposition of law. 13. In Dr. Ramulu and another, etc. Vs. Dr. 13. In Dr. Ramulu and another, etc. Vs. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao and others the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a large number of its earlier Judgments and held that if the Rules have been amended, person has a right to be considered as per the amended Rules unless his existing rights prior to the amendment have specifically been saved and for the reason that he cannot claim to have acquired any vested right for being considered in accordance with the Rules existing prior to the amendment. 14. In Utkal University Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Others, ; and Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig (Dead) by Lrs. and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the eligibility is to be assessed as per the Rules existing on the last date of submission of the applications. 15. Fixing eligibility falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature and cannot be a subject matter of judicial review unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed/prescribed without keeping in mind the nature of services for which the appointments are to be made or it has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute. It is always permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications/eligibility in the matter of appointments/promotions to different posts. Even if a person joins the service, he merely acquires a status and the rights and obligations thereto are not to be determined by the consent of the parties but by the Statute or statutory Rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. (Vide State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Shiv Ram Sharma and Others, ). 16. In Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others the Apex Court held that in the matter of employment, i.e., selection and appointment, the authority concerned has unfettered power in procedural aspect. The Courts should not interfere unless the appointments so made are found to have been made "at the cost of fair play, good conscience and equity." 17. The eligibility criteria should not be arbitrary or unreasonable and if is found so, it becomes liable to be quashed as it falls within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provides for equality before law and equal protection of law. 18. The eligibility criteria should not be arbitrary or unreasonable and if is found so, it becomes liable to be quashed as it falls within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provides for equality before law and equal protection of law. 18. The scope of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been widened by judicial interpretation to mean not only the right to be not discriminated but also protection of any arbitrary or irrational act of the State. Arbitrariness is a anathema of rule of equality. (Vide Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Others Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others, ). 19. In view of the above, law can be summarised that a candidate has a right to be considered strictly in accordance with all the terms, eligibility etc. as prescribed in the advertisement. The advertisement may not provide all details. Therefore, the selection is to be held in consonance with the statutory provision or in absence thereof the circular/guidelines issued by the State authority. 20. In the instant case, Government of Orissa, Women and Child Development Department issued guidelines dated 30.11.1998. So far as age is concerned, Clause-2 thereof reads as under: The Applicant will be a female candidate in the age group of 21 to 40 years. She should have attained the age of 21 years but not 41 years on the first day of the year in which the application has been invited... 21. In this case applications have been invited in July, 2000. Therefore, the eligibility is to be determined as on 1st January, 2000. The writ Petitioner admittedly did not acquire the eligibility in respect of age. Therefore, she could not claim the right of consideration against the said post. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the selection process could not proceed at all and the applications had been invited more than eight years' ago, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge do not require any interference whatsoever and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondents-authorities may initiate the selection process de novo and conclude the same in accordance with law expeditiously. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 21. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed