JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Process for filling up various posts of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers was commenced in I.C.D.S. Project, Sangrah, District Sirmaur in sequel to notices dated 5.10.2009 and 8.1.2010. Petitioner submitted her application for considering her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Koti. Initially, the interviews were fixed for 22.6.2010 but the date was changed to 28.6.2010. The minimum qualification prescribed as per notification dated 5.10.2009 to the post of Anganwadi Worker was matriculation. In partial modification of notifications dated 5.10.2009 and 8.1.2010, respondent-State has substituted certain provisions, including rule 4, i.e. eligibility criteria, vide notification dated 19.6.2010. As per notification dated 19.6.2010, the candidate should possess minimum qualification of 10+2 or equivalent. The interviews though were held on 28.6.2010 but the same have been cancelled as per reply filed, vide Annexure P-2. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that once the selection process had commenced on 5.10.2009 and 8.1.2010 and the interviews were held on 28.6.2010, the same could not be set to naught on the basis of fresh instructions issued on 19.6.2010. She further argued that her client was fully eligible as per notification dated 5.10.2009 and the action of the respondent-State to cancel the interviews held on 28.6.2010 is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that in view of notification dated 19.6.2010, petitioner was not eligible. 3. I have heard the learned council for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 4. The minimum qualification prescribed vide notification dated 5.10.2009 for filling the post of Anganwari Worker was matriculation. Petitioner possessed this qualification and on the basis of which, she applied for the post of Anganwari Worker, Anganwari Centre, Koti. She was issued call letter. Initially, the interviews were to be held on 22.6.2010 but the same were postponed to 28.6.2010. The petitioner was interviewed by the duly constituted Selection Committee. The interviews held on 28.6.2010 have been cancelled vide Annexure P-2 by referring to notification dated 19.6.2010. Once the selection process has commenced as per notification dated 5.10.2009, the same could not be set to naught by the respondents by cancelling the interviews held on 28.6.2010. The instructions dated 19.6.2010 whereby the qualification has been changed from matriculation to 10+2 would apply prospectively and would not effect the selection process, which had already commenced as per notification dated 5.10.2009. The instructions dated 19.6.2010 whereby the qualification has been changed from matriculation to 10+2 would apply prospectively and would not effect the selection process, which had already commenced as per notification dated 5.10.2009. Petitioner had acquired right to be considered for the post in question as per notification dated 5.10.2009 and 8.1.2010, pursuant to which she had been interviewed on 28.6.2010. The law looks forward. The rights which had accrued to the petitioner on the basis of notification dated 5.10.2009 cannot be destroyed merely on the basis of fresh instructions dated 19.6.2010. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-2 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker for Anganwari Centre, Koti on the basis of interviews held on 28.6.2010, within a period of four weeks from today with all the consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.