JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged communication dated 12.12.2019, whereby petitioner's candidature as an Anganwari Worker has been rejected for want of requisite experience of 10 years. 2. The precise facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioner applied for the post of Supervisor (Female) against Anganwari Worker quota, pursuant to recruitment notification dated 01.10.2018. 3. The petitioner submitted her application form on 03.11.2018 and claimed that she is having 10 years' experience of working as an Anganwari Worker. 4. The petitioner was firstly engaged as Anganwari Worker on 23.10.2009. 5. The terms of the advertisement provided following eligibility criteria for the post against which the petitioner has vied:- "7(i) Graduate of a University established by law in India, with 10 Years Experience as Anganwadi worker in ICDS." 6. A note was appended therewith which reads thus:- ^^vko';d uksV%& ijUrq ,slk O;fDr] tks lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu;eksa ;k vuqlwfp;ksa esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr in ds fy, visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk okys ,sls ikB~;Øe ds vfUre o"kZ dh ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gks pqdk@pqdh gS ;k mifLFkr gks jgk@jgh gS] ml in ds fy, vkosnu djus dk ik= gksxk@gksxh fdUrq mls& 1- tgka p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds nks izØeksa ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] eq[; ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] 2- tgka p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] 3- tgk a dsoy fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k ;FkkfLFkfr] dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] fyf[kr ijh{kk vFkok lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] leqfpr p;u ,tsUlh dks visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk fyf[kr ijh{kk dh frfFk rd vftZr dj ysus dk lcwr izLrqr djuk gksxkA cksMZ }kjk mDr inksa ij p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 7. After being qualified in the written examination, petitioner was called for and appeared for document verification on 08.08.2019. However, the respondents rejected petitioner's candidature vide impugned communication dated 12.12.2019, inter alia, citing that she had not completed 10 years as Anganwari Worker on the last date of submitting the application form. 8. Mr. After being qualified in the written examination, petitioner was called for and appeared for document verification on 08.08.2019. However, the respondents rejected petitioner's candidature vide impugned communication dated 12.12.2019, inter alia, citing that she had not completed 10 years as Anganwari Worker on the last date of submitting the application form. 8. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the essential note appended with the Clause 7 argued that as per the note aforesaid, the candidate, who had completed 10 years of experience till the date of document verification, is entitled to be appointed inasmuch as the experience till the date of document verification ought to have been considered. 9. Learned counsel emphasized that on the date of document verification i.e. on 08.08.2019, the petitioner has completed about 10 years and 8 months of experience as Anganwari Worker. 10. Heard and perused the material. 11. A perusal of relevant Clause 7(i) reproduced hereinabove shows that, it relates to eligibility and educational qualification requiring a graduate degree and 10 years' experience as Anganwari Worker in ICDS. 12. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, that in terms of para No. 2 of the note appended in Clause 7, the petitioner's eligibility should be reckoned till the date of document verification, is not tenable in law. 13. A careful reading of the entire Clause 7 particularly, note appended therewith, reveals that the same is relatable to educational qualification, which is evident from the fact that the note begins with the condition that the candidate studying in final year of the qualifying examination will be entitled for furnishing the application form. 14. It is in this backdrop, the subsequent conditions mentioned in points No. 1, 2 and 3 are required to be considered. 15. Thus, a candidate who was studying in final year of the qualifying course can furnish a proof of completing the educational qualification at the time of written examination or at the time of document verification or interview. 16. Obtaining the educational qualification cannot be equated with gaining of experience. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the terms of advertisement or relevant rules otherwise provide, the qualification has to be reckoned on the last date of submitting application form. 17. 16. Obtaining the educational qualification cannot be equated with gaining of experience. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the terms of advertisement or relevant rules otherwise provide, the qualification has to be reckoned on the last date of submitting application form. 17. As far as the experience part is concerned, the same has to be read independent of the points appended with the above referred essential note. 18. In considered opinion of this Court, a candidate must possess requisite experience of 10 years at the time of submitting application form. 19. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility criteria and requisite qualification etc. are required to be reckoned on the last date of submitting application form. 20. In the present case, it is a question of awarding bonus marks based on the experience certificate, hence, the respondents have rightly pegged the date i.e. date of issuance of advertisement/notification, as the last date upto which experience is to be counted, so that the candidates can procure an experience certificate pursuant to the advertisement/notification and furnish the application in time. 21. If petitioner's contention of counting the experience upto the date of document verification is accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation; because no candidate would be able to enclose a certificate of experience, at the time of submitting application form and there will be different dates for different candidates. 22. The similar controversy has been dealt with and decided by this Court in SBCWP No. 65/2021 (Kiran Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 19.02.2021. 23. The relevant portion of the judgment aforesaid reads thus:- "09. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition has no merit. 10. Concededly, at the time of submitting application form, petitioner had only 8 years and 3 months of experience. 11. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondents have provided leverage in relation to educational qualification and permitted all those candidates to apply who were in final year of the qualifying examination, there ought to have been a similar stipulation in relation to experience as well, is not tenable. 12. Firstly, obtaining the educational qualification cannot be equated with gaining of experience. 12. Firstly, obtaining the educational qualification cannot be equated with gaining of experience. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the terms of advertisement or relevant rules otherwise provide, the qualification has to be reckoned on the last date of submitting application form. 13. The petitioner on the date of submitting her application form i.e., on 13.10.2018, did not have requisite experience and thus, is not entitled for consideration. 14. Even if a liberal approach is adopted, the fact remains that the petitioner had not gained experience of 10 years, even at the time of issuance of first merit list, i.e., 16.01.2020. 15. Such being the position, the petition is bereft of any force, for which it is hereby dismissed." 24. In light of what has been noticed herein and in light of judgment in Kiran Choudhary (supra), the present writ petition is dismissed. 25. Stay application also stands disposed of.