Order : In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned criteria inserted vide order dated 9.12.2015, which was published in the Advertisement dated 23.12.2015, by which the petitioners stood disqualified from participating in the Selection Process. Further a prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to apply in the newly created posts of Multi-Purpose Health Workers (for short 'MPHWs') under the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme. 2. The National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme is a programme of National Health Mission, which was launched in the State of Jharkhand in the year 2007-08. For implementation of the said programme, Multi Purpose Health Workers were employed under the scheme. A guideline was formulated wherein, the eligibility criteria for selection of workers was prescribed. Pursuant to the direction of the Central Government, an Advertisement was issued for engagement of Multipurpose Health Workers (MPHWs), on contract, for a period of one year. The petitioners claim that pursuant to the said advertisement, they applied and subsequently they were selected and appointed on different dates vide different notifications ranging from 5.12.2013 to 28.5.2014. 3. The petitioners claim is that they were assured that their respective contract would be extended, but nothing was done and their appointments stood expired on 30.9.2014. The Central Government vide letter No. 7(35) 2014-NRHM-I dated 23.6.2014 has directed the State Government to create requisite number of post of MPHWs, if such services are required beyond 30.9.2014 and fill them on a regular basis. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter No. 23.9.2014 informed the Mission Director of National Health Mission, Government of India that in view of the active role of MPHWs in surveillance and control of vector borne diseases, the State Government has initiated the process of their absorption in the programme as Surveillance Workers/Superior Field Workers. It is alleged by the petitioners that the State Government time and again issued public statement and newspaper articles that on account of conclusion of NHM Scheme for Malaria control, the State Government has decided to absorb all the 1892-2000 (approx.) MPHWs in the Health Department. It is alleged by the petitioners that the State Government time and again issued public statement and newspaper articles that on account of conclusion of NHM Scheme for Malaria control, the State Government has decided to absorb all the 1892-2000 (approx.) MPHWs in the Health Department. It has also been stated that it was decided by the State that 1892 MPHWs working upto 30.9.2014 under the NHM Scheme is to be considered for deployment in newly created 2150 posts and the eligibility criteria was fixed, wherein, it has been provided that the applicants must possesses one year experience of working as MPHWs (Male). 4. The petitioners aggrieved by the said clause have challenged the same by way of filing this writ petition. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working on contract basis as MPHWs (Male) and as per the said Scheme of their engagement, there was no clause for experience. She further submits that the eligibility criteria on earlier occasion was only limited to the extent that one should possess qualification of class-XII with Biology and Science and in Tribal Areas, if no candidate is available who passed Class 12 with Science, the minimum Educational Qualification was relaxed as “Class X with science”. She further submits that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis on the aforesaid eligibility criteria and thus while taking the decision for absorption, the petitioners have been considered afresh and the clause of having one year experience as MPHWs (Male) is absolutely illegal. She further submits that the petitioners were appointed for one year but they were terminated prematurely before expiry of one year and thus they could not complete the period of one year. She also submits that by putting “one year experience” clause in the advertisement dated 23.12.2015, the petitioners have been debarred from participating in the said appointment process and thus they cannot be absorbed. She also submits that the entire process is absolutely illegal and is against the guidelines given for the purpose of appointment of MPHWs (Male). 6. The State has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and the contentions raised by the petitioners. Counsel for the State submits that the decision was taken by the State to fix the minimum qualification and experience and the same cannot be challenged. He further submits that the said clause is not mala fide nor arbitrary. 6. The State has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and the contentions raised by the petitioners. Counsel for the State submits that the decision was taken by the State to fix the minimum qualification and experience and the same cannot be challenged. He further submits that the said clause is not mala fide nor arbitrary. He submits that in the similar circumstances, the challenge in respect of fixing the upper age limit was turned down by a Bench of this Court in WPS No. 18/2016. 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. The main contention of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the State cannot fix the experience qualification of one year in the advertisement dated 23.12.2015. From the Advertisement dated 23.12.2015, it appears that the State has fixed the one year working experience as MPHWs (Male) for filling up the newly created 2150 posts. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said Clause. As per the petitioners, the said clause debarred them from being considered pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.12.2015. Since the petitioners had not completed one year of service as MPHWs (Male), they cannot participate in the process of appointment pursuant to the said Advertisement, thus they claim for relaxation/quashing of the said clause. 9. It is within the domain of the executives/legislature to frame a policy and lay down the criteria such as age limit, cut off date and other eligibility criteria etc. In the instant case, the State has chosen to come up with an experience clause, which is “one year working experience as MPHWs”. The State has definitely got the jurisdiction to prescribe the said eligibility criteria/clause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 , in paragraph 12 has held as under:- “12. Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislative/executive and cannot be the subject matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service, for which appointments are to be made, or has no rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the Statute. Such eligibility can be changed even for the purpose of promotion, unilaterally and the person seeking such promotion cannot raise the grievance that he should be governed only by the rules existing, when he joined service. In the matter of appointments, the authority concerned has unfettered powers so far as the procedural aspects are concerned, but it must meet the requirement of eligibility, etc. The court should therefore, refrain from interfering, unless the appointments so made, or the rejection of a candidature is found to have been done at the cost of “fair play”, “good conscience” and “equity”. (vide State of J&K Vs. Shiv Ram Sharma and Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab).” 10. The petitioners' claim is that they will be debarred by virtue of the said clause, cannot be a ground to interfere with the same. Hardship to one or the other candidates cannot itself be a ground to challenge to a particular eligibility criteria/clause. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the clause of one year experience as prescribed by the State is either arbitrary or unreasonable. I fine no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly.