ORDER S.K. Gangele, J. 1. In all the connected petitions, the Petitioners have questioned the eligibility criteria enforced by the Respondents in regard to grant of licence for Part Time Foreign Language Linguist Guide. The Petitioners further prayed that they be permitted to participate in the training programme and in regard to grant of licence, they be granted the relief of grant of licence to work as Part Time Foreign Language Linguist Guide. 2. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the Act, 1958) was enacted to provide for preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and others objects of the kind. Section 18 of the Act of 1958 restricted access to protected monument and as per the aforesaid Section subject to any rules made under this Act, the public shall have a right of access to any protected monument. Section 38 of the Act of 1958 provides power to the Central Government to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Consequently, the Central Government framed rules known as the ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1959'). 3. Access to the protected Monument includes the entitlement of the members of the public to know about the details of the monument, its historical background and other connected matters, information of which generally obtain through the guides. In this perspective, the Central Government and the Tourist Department thought it proper that the tourists are properly informed and not misguided or fleeced by unscrupulous guides or such elements posing to be guides, although to engage a guide is optional on the part of the tourist. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.P. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) SCC 309 has held as under in regard to guide and entitlement to pass examination to work as guide: 2. The guides as commonly known conduct the tourists to the historical monuments and other places of interest of tourists and explain the background and the importance of such places as well as acquaint them with the historical facts relating to the monuments and many landmarks of the area. The guides as commonly known conduct the tourists to the historical monuments and other places of interest of tourists and explain the background and the importance of such places as well as acquaint them with the historical facts relating to the monuments and many landmarks of the area. This job developed into a kind of a specialized profession and they have to handle local tourists, foreign tourists, tourist parties and many dignitaries visiting the places. They charge for rendering such services. In this background it appears that it was thought necessary to regulate this profession and a need also seems to have been felt to issue identity cards to those persons who may act as authorized guides and charge fee for the service rendered. So as the guides may be presentable, well-up in their knowledge and their conduct towards the tourists may be cultured and ethical, certain conditions have been laid down including one relating to holding a test which any of such person is required to pass before being entitled to be issued an identity card as a guide. Detailed instructions in that connection have been issued in 1979 by the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, Department of Tourism, Government of India. 5. Vide Notification in the year 2003, the Ministry of Tourism has been appointed as a Statutory Authority for the purpose of framing guidelines for training of the Regional Level Tourist Guides. Initially 2003 Guidelines were framed and subsequently it were revised known as Revised Guidelines of 2007. Copy of the Revised Guidelines have been filed as Annexure R/1 along with the return. The Guidelines for the Regional Level Guide Training Course are as under: 1. (a) Regional level guides shall be trained by the Ministry of Tourism Government of India through the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management (IITTM) or their chapters or any other recognized institute in coordination with the concerned Regional Director and Indian tourism offices located in that region. (b) Part-Time Guide: In order to encourage scholars, linguists and proven experts from the fields of Indian history, architecture, and culture to join this profession there would be a special category of regional level guides known as Part-Time guides. These guides would have academic qualifications of doctorate levels or have published papers in their specialized fields of activity at national/international levels. These guides would have academic qualifications of doctorate levels or have published papers in their specialized fields of activity at national/international levels. Since there are acute shortage of guides speaking some of foreign languages such as Chinese, Russian, Korean, Thai, Arabic, Hungarian, Polish, Hebrew, etc., linguists with specialized qualifications/proves skill and fluency in these languages may also be approved under this category. Guides under this category could hold regular employment in any other filed other than in shopping establishments. They would however, undergo an abridged special training of 8 weeks successfully before they are certified s guides. Educational qualification and Age limit have also been provided as per Clause 4 of the Guidelines: 4. Educational qualification and Age limit The following educational qualifications and age limit are prescribed for the direct selection of guides: (i) Minimum: Graduate of a recognized University or three years degree holder in tourism/Hospitality from a recognized University/Institute or Diploma in Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi or from any other recognized Institution/University. (ii) Fluency in English language is essential. (iii) Preference would be given to candidates having knowledge and fluency in a non-English foreign language. Candidates should have completed at least a six month regular course in the foreign language from a recognized university/approved institution/the Embassy or consulate concerned or their cultural centre. (iv) For the category of part-time guides holding employment in any field: (a) Doctorate level qualifications in Indian History/Architecture/Culture or scholars/experts who have papers published in national/international journals or repute. (b) Linguists with proven skills, proficiency and fluency in languages in which there are acute shortage of guides. They should either hold certificates/diplomas as mentioned at (iii) above or pass a written exam an oral test conducted by the Ministry of Tourism through IITTM. A lecturer/professor of the language concerned at the local university and an official of the embassy concerned would be members on the selection panel among others. (v) Age limit. (i) The Applicant should be at least 20 years of age on the date of the first advertisement appearing in the media for selection of guides. 6. The Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement for PartTime Foreign Language Linguist Guide. (v) Age limit. (i) The Applicant should be at least 20 years of age on the date of the first advertisement appearing in the media for selection of guides. 6. The Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement for PartTime Foreign Language Linguist Guide. The qualifications for the guides have been prescribed in the advertisement Annexure R/ 4, which are as under: Qualification: (1)Any Graduate from a recognized University or Diploma holder in Archeology from the Institute of Archeology under ASI, New Delhi or any other recognized Institute/University. Candidates must be in possession of the Diploma/Degree certificate on the date of the publication of first advertisement, and (2) Undergone at least six months regular Certificate/Diploma course in the concerned foreign language with proven skill and fluency, from a recognized University, Embassy/Consulate concerned/their Cultural Centres, or by other Institutions approved/recognized by the Government. (3) Fluency in English Language. (4) Holding a regular employment in any field other than shopping. Documentary proof of the above should be enclosed along with application. The written test/ examination of the candidates would be conducted in the concerned foreign language. Candidates desiring to work as Part Time Foreign Language Linguist Guides will have to be regular residents of any one of the States that come under the jurisdiction or Regional Director (Northern Region) and proof of domicile will have to be submitted at the time of application. All the Petitioners applied for Part Time Foreign Language Linguist Guides. They appeared in the written examination conducted by the Institute for the aforesaid purpose. As per the Petitioners, they have cleared the written examination, however, the Respondent No. 1 did not call them for training. 7. The Respondent No. 1 in its return stated that the Petitioners did not have the requisite qualifications of Graduate on the cut-off date i.e. on 21/08/2008. It has further been submitted that some of the Petitioners did not score 50% marks in the written examination, hence, they were not permitted to take up the training of the Part Time Foreign Language Linguist Guides Programme. 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners have contended that the qualification fixed by the Respondent No. 1 as Graduate and 50% marks in written examination, is arbitrary and illegal. 8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners have contended that the qualification fixed by the Respondent No. 1 as Graduate and 50% marks in written examination, is arbitrary and illegal. It has further been submitted that the Respondents cannot impose the qualifications in regard to issuance of Part Time Foreign Language Linguist Guides licence, because it is not a full time job. It has further been contended that the restrictions are against the Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It has further been contended that there is estoppel in favour of the Petitioners. In support of the aforesaid contentions, the learned Counsel relied upon on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.P. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 309 and in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and another, (2009) 1 SCC 610 and some unreported judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ankit Goyal v. Union of India WP (C) No. 7185/2008 and in the case of Tourist Guides Federation of India v. Union of India and Ors. LPA No. 360/2008. 9. Contrary to this, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents have submitted that the Petitioners participated in the written examination, however, they did not score the minimum qualifying marks and some of the Petitioners did not have the qualification of the Bachelor Degree, which is an essential qualification for the Guides on the cut-off date. Hence, the Petitioners have not been called for training programme and the action taken by the Respondents is in consonance with law. 10. The Part Time Guides Programme has been prescribed in the Revised Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tourism and the essential qualification as has been mentioned above in the order and one of the minimum qualification is Graduate of a recognized University or three years degree in Tourism Hospitality . The selection of Guides Training Programme has also been mentioned and as per the selection clause, a candidate has to secure atleast minimum 50% marks in the written examination for the purpose of selection for training. The aforesaid criteria has been prescribed by the Expert body. 11. The Delhi High Court in the case of Anuj Johri v. Union of India and Ors. The aforesaid criteria has been prescribed by the Expert body. 11. The Delhi High Court in the case of Anuj Johri v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 4366/2001 has upheld the minimum qualification criteria of the Bachelor as proper observing that the criteria is in consonance with the object that better educated persons became guides. In regard to securing 50% marks in the written examination, the aforesaid criteria also could not be said to be illegal or arbitrary, because, the aforesaid criteria has been fixed by the Expert body. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to discretion of the Expert body in the case of The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 , in the case of V. Siva Kumar v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence 2008 (2) SCC 99 and in the case of B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah 2008 (14) SCC 306 held as under: 28. In National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman this Court considered in detail the role of an expert body in deciding the candidature for selection to a particular post. While doing so, this Court at SCC pp.484-85, para 7 of the said decision observed as follows: 7. ...In the first place, it must be noted that the function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. The High Court seems to be in error in stating that the Selection Committee ought to have given some reasons for preferring Dr. Gauri Devi as against the other candidate. The selection has been made by the assessment of relative merits of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of candidates possessing the required eligibility. There is no rule or regulation brought to our notice requiring the Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence of any such legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with. The High Court in support of its reasoning has, however, referred to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor. That decision proceeded on a statutory requirement. Regulation 5(5) which was considered in that case required the Selection Committee to record its reasons for superseding a senior member in the State Civil Service. The decision in Capoor case was rendered on 26-9-1973. That decision proceeded on a statutory requirement. Regulation 5(5) which was considered in that case required the Selection Committee to record its reasons for superseding a senior member in the State Civil Service. The decision in Capoor case was rendered on 26-9-1973. In June 1977, Regulation 5(5) was amended deleting the requirement of recording reasons for the supersession of senior officers of the State Civil Services. Capoor case cannot, therefore, be construed as an authority for the proposition that there should be reason formulation for administrative decision. Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Dass v. Union of India in which Capoor case was also distinguished. Keeping this observation in our mind and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that there was no dispute in this case that the selection was made by the assessment of relative merit of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of the candidates and after thoroughly verifying the experience and service of the respective candidates selected the Appellant to the post of the Professor in the said Department. From the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the Court would be slow to interfere in the decision of the Expert body in regard to fixation of criteria for the purpose of selection until and unless the malafides is attributed. In this case, there is no malafides in the decision to fix a criteria of receiving 50% marks in written examination. Hence, the aforesaid ground raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners could not be sustained. 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that some of the Petitioners acquired the qualification of Bachelor after the notification or after the cut-off date as fixed by the Institute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in regard to holding of an educational qualification at the time of cut-off date in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. 1997 (4) SCC 18 : 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in regard to holding of an educational qualification at the time of cut-off date in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. 1997 (4) SCC 18 : 6. The Review petitions came up for final hearing on March 3, 1997. We heard the learned Counsel for the review Petitioners, for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and for the 33 Respondent So far as the first issue referred to in our order dated Ist September, 1995 is concerned, we are of the respectful opinion that majority judgment (rendered by the Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) is unsustainable in law,. the proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for fling the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similiarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their application ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment. This is also the proposition affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and others 1993 Supp. (3) S.C.C 168]. The reasoning in majority opinion that by allowing the 33 Respondents to appear for the interview, the Recruiting Authority was able to get the bests talent available and that such course was in furtherence of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible Justification It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of low and an error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 Respondents could not have allowed to appear for interview. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dipitimayee Parida v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2008) 10 SCC 687 in paragraphs 16 and 17 has as under: 16. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra-qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application. This has been so held in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and Ors. 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, stating: 10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some Applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some Applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question arc liable to be quashed. 17. Yet again, in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. Chander Shekhar and Anr. 1997 (4) SCC 18 , this Court held: 6. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the person had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. {See also Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 54 Para 20], Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal and Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 260 Para 20 and 21]} 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases has clearly held that the educational qualification acquired subsequently after the cut-off date could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment/selection. The point raised by the counsel of Petitioners in regard to estoppel in favour of the Petitioners is without merit, because principle of estoppel is not applicable in the facts of the case. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no merit in all the petitions and the petitions are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.