JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. : A common question arises in this batch of writ petitions. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions assail clause-2 of the revised guidelines for selection of Anganwadi workers issued by the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of Orissa stipulating that the applicant should have attained the age of 18 years but not 43 years on the Ist day of the year, in which the application has been invited. Assailing such a provision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that such provision is arbitrary as in many cases advertisement for seeking applications for engagement of Anganwa¬di workers are being issued much later in the year. It is contended that the persons who have attained the qualifying age after such first date of the year but before the date of adver¬tisement are being denied of the opportunity of being engaged. It is also contended that whenever any advertisement for appointment is made, the cut off date for determining the age should be the date of the advertisement or it should be the last date of re¬ceipt of the applications. 3. Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the revised guidelines have been issued by the State Government to ensure uniformity throughout the State. It is also contended that service rules are not applicable strictly for selection and engagement of Anganwadi workers as it is not a permanent civil post. Rather, it is contended that the Anganwadi worker is a volunteer and she is being paid a honorarium for the service she is rendering to her community. It is also contended by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that there is no specific rules guiding the selection of Anganwadi workers and for that reason a guideline has been issued. 4. The Supreme Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another v. B. Sarat Chandra and others, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 669 ; examined the question, whether the Rule providing the first date of July of the year, as the cut off date, in which the selection is made, under the relevant rule, was correct or otherwise. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the word ‘selection’ is not understood in the sense of preparation of the select list for appointment. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the word ‘selection’ is not understood in the sense of preparation of the select list for appointment. The process of selection begins with issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. Thus, it consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus held that when such are the different steps in the process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of applica¬tion find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinize applications. Holding thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of the rule requiring for prescribing a cut off date for calculating the minimum and maximum age. 5. In Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 S.C. 2011 ; The Supreme Court, after examining several cases decided earlier, laid down that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appoint¬ed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules, then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; sec¬ondly, if there is no such date appointed, then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. 6. Validity of prescribing cut off date also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jasbir Rani and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2002 S.C. 60 . 6. Validity of prescribing cut off date also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Jasbir Rani and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2002 S.C. 60 . The Hon’ble Apex Court took note of the fact that the Rule, under consideration, does not provide a cut off date in that case, by which an appli¬cant is to satisfy the prescribed eligibility qualification pertaining to age. In absence of a statutory provision in that regard the date has to be fixed at the time of issuing the adver¬tisement. This is necessary not merely to enable the appointing authority to sort out the applications of the eligible candidates from those candidates who do not fulfill the prescribed qualifi¬cation, but also to avoid criticism of favoritism and nopotism against the authority. In that case Advertisement was issued on 18th September, 1997 inviting applications from male candidates only. The cut off date was fixed as Ist September. Later another advertisement was issued on 19th September, 1998, fixing the same cut off date, inviting applications from eligible candidates. In the circumstance, the apex Court held that no exception can be taken to the action of the authority fixing the same cut-off date in both the advertisements. The Supreme Court also negatived the contention that prescribing a cut off date prior to the date of appointment for the purpose of satisfying the eligi¬bility qualification pertaining to age is impermissible. 7. In Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, 2007(4) SCC 54 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a cut off date for the pur¬pose of determining the eligibility of the candidate must be fixed in absence of any Rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law therefore, as held by the Supreme Court, would be the last date of filing of the applica¬tion. 8. The Supreme Court in Council of Scientific and Indus¬trial Research and others v. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and another, (2009) 3 SCC 35 examined the same question and held that the State is entitled to fix a cut-off date. Such a decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. Its invalidation may also depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. By choosing a cut off date, no illegality was committed. Ex facie it cannot be said to be arbitrary. Such a decision can be struck down only when it is arbitrary. Its invalidation may also depend upon the question as to whether it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. By choosing a cut off date, no illegality was committed. Ex facie it cannot be said to be arbitrary. The employer has a choice. The Supreme Court fur¬ther held that the Courts power of judicial review in this behalf although exists but is limited in the sense that the impugned action can be struck down only when it is found to be arbitrary. It is possible that by reason of such a cut-off date an employee mises his chance very narrowly. Such hazards would be there in all the services. Only because it causes hardship to a few persons or a section of the employees may not by itself be a good ground for directing fixation of another cut-off date. In that case, the Supreme Court noted that the scheme which was under consideration was a one time measure and cut off date has been fixed for those who are eligible as per the criteria laid down by the Scheme. 9. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that the State is entitled to fix a cut-off date. Whenever there is any rule guiding selection and appointment to any par¬ticular post, then the date prescribed by such rule should be valid. If there is no such rule, the date of advertisement or the last date of submission of the application form, should be ac¬cepted as the cut off date. The case in hand is regarding selec¬tion and engagement of Anganwadi workers. It is not disputed that the scheme under which such engagements are being made is a welfare scheme aimed at providing early education and nourishment to the children and expectant mothers. It is also undisputed at the stage that such Anganwadi workers are not civil servants. They are only volunteers and are paid honorarium. 10. The State Government in the Welfare Department has been issuing guidelines from stage to stage and the latest guideline was issued in the year 2007 and was circulated to all the Collec¬tors in May, 2007. Such guidelines very clearly indicate that the applicants should be a female candidate in the age group of 18 to 42 years. 10. The State Government in the Welfare Department has been issuing guidelines from stage to stage and the latest guideline was issued in the year 2007 and was circulated to all the Collec¬tors in May, 2007. Such guidelines very clearly indicate that the applicants should be a female candidate in the age group of 18 to 42 years. She should have attained the age of 18 but not exceeded 42 years by the first date of the year, when the appli¬cation was invited. This rule has been made uniformly applicable to all Anganwadi Centres irrespective of the date of the actual advertisement. By fixing a date, the State has not only brought in a sense of uniformity throughout the State has also stopped any further confusion or criticism on the ground of nepotism , favoritism etc. In other words, appointed date is not left to the discretion of the C.D.P.O. Rather, the State Government has taken a decision that the first date of each year shall be cut off date and such decision cannot be held to be arbitrary in any manner. It is true that some of the candidates may be adversely affected by such a decision. That by itself does not make the guidelines issued by the State Government arbitrary. 11. In view of the aforesaid clear cut position of law, there appears to be no reasonable ground for exercising powers of judicial review. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition allowed.