JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. The respondents issued an advertisement for appointment of Anganwari Worker. The advertisement was published under a specific notification that spelt out the eligibility criteria including the permissible age limit of the applicant and cut-off date for determining the age eligibility. The advertisement though mentioned the age limit, but omitted to give the cut-off date for determining the age limit. Realizing this material error, the respondents called off the selection process and published a fresh advertisement in conformity with the notification. Thepetitioner, who had applied under the first advertisement, is not eligible under the fresh advertisement, hence, this petition by her. 2. Facts: (i) The respondents-Social Justice and Empowerment Department on 24.08.2023, notified revised guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/Helpers under the ICDS Programme in Himachal Pradesh. Relevant to the context is the eligibility criteria prescribed in these revised guidelines, more particularly, the age limit for applying for the post of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/Helpers. Clause 4(c) of the notification dated 24.08.2023 stipulated that ‘only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/ Helpers, who are aged between 18-35 years as on the last date of advertisement’. (ii) Under the revised guidelines notified on 24.08.2023, the respondents issued an advertisement on 02.11.2023, inviting applications for the post of Anganwari Workers/Helpers in different Anganwari Centres including Anganwari Centre Mandal-II. One of the conditions of eligibility in the advertisement was that the candidate should be within the age range of 18-35 years. The last date for applying was 24.11.2023. The cut-off date for satisfying the age-limit was not given in the advertisement. (iii) Petitioner applied for the aforesaid post on 13.11.2023. It is an admitted position on her part that her date of birth is 24.11.1988 and she had crossed the age of 35 years on 24.11.2023, i.e. the last date for applying under the advertisement. (iv) The respondents realized the mistake in the advertisement dated 02.11.2023 inasmuch as the advertisement though mentioned the eligibility age to be between 18-35 years, but did not give the cut-off date for determining the maximum age limit. As noticed above, the maximum age-limit in terms of notification dated 24.08.2023 was to be determined as on the last date of advertisement. As noticed above, the maximum age-limit in terms of notification dated 24.08.2023 was to be determined as on the last date of advertisement. The petitioner, who would have crossed the age of 35 years on the last date of advertisement, i.e. 24.11.2023, would not have been eligible for the post in question. (v) Noticing the omission in advertisement dated 02.11.2023, the respondents considered the matter and deferred the selection process. The selection process under advertisement dated 02.11.2023 was finally cancelled on27.08.2024 on the ground that the cut-off date for determining maximum age limit had not been indicated in the advertisement. (vi) A fresh advertisement was issued by the respondents on 02.10.2024 (Annexure P-14), inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment as Anganwari Workers/Helpers in various Anganwari Centres including Anganwari Centre Mandal-II. The last date for applying under the advertisement dated 02.10.2024 was 22.10.2024. The new advertisement clearly stated that the applicant in order to become eligible, should be within the age-limit of 18-35 years as on 22.10.2024. The petitioner had become overage and could not have applied under the advertisement dated 02.10.2024. Hence, she preferred this writ petition. (vii) Vide order dated 25.10.2024 passed in this writ petition, the petitioner was provisionally allowed to participate in the interview for the post Anganwari Workers/Helpers scheduled for 28.10.2024 under the new advertisement dated 02.10.2024 for Anganwari Centre Mandal-II, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi. Her result was also produced in a sealed cover before the Court on 25.11.2024.It is thereafter that this matter is being heard today. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents were bound to take the selection process initiated by them under advertisement dated 02.11.2023 to its logical conclusion. No cogent reasons have been given by the respondents for abandoning the selection process under the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner was eligible for the post in question under the aforesaid advertisement and therefore, her candidature was required to be considered. Reliance was placed upon Delhi Jal Board vs. Nirmala Devi, Civil Appeal No. 7047 of 2022, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 19.10.2022 to urge that it is the date of applying for the post, which is to be considered and not the date on which the application is considered. Shaik Mahaboob John Vs. Reliance was placed upon Delhi Jal Board vs. Nirmala Devi, Civil Appeal No. 7047 of 2022, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 19.10.2022 to urge that it is the date of applying for the post, which is to be considered and not the date on which the application is considered. Shaik Mahaboob John Vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others, Writ Petition No. 8648 of 2019, decided alongwith connected matters by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 10.05.2024 was pressed into service to contend that the State does not have the license to act in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafidely for appropriate reasons. Anil Kishore Pandit vs. The State of Bihar and others, Civil Appeal No. 1566 of 2024 decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.02.2024 was relied upon to contend that it is not open for an employer to change the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement midstream during the course of ongoing selection process. Any such action would be hit by the vice of arbitrariness as it would tantamount to denial of an opportunity to those candidates who are eligible in terms of the advertisement, but would stand disqualified on the basis of a change in the eligibility criteria after the same is announced by the employer. State of Assam & Ors. vs. Arabinda Rabha & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025 decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 07.03.2025 was quoted, where selection process was cancelled as it had been conducted in violation of reservation policy and law laid down by the Court. In the given situation of the case, the appellant was given liberty to take forward the selection process by publishing fresh advertisement. The respondents, who had applied under the previous advertisement, if they chose to apply under fresh advertisement, were to be considered waiving the age bar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file: (i) It is not in dispute that the selection process for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/Helpers is governed by the revised guidelines notified on 24.08.2023 by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Himachal Pradesh. Thesaid notification provides that in order to become eligible for the post of Anganwari Worker/Helper, the age of the candidate should be between 18-35 years as on the last date of advertisement. Thesaid notification provides that in order to become eligible for the post of Anganwari Worker/Helper, the age of the candidate should be between 18-35 years as on the last date of advertisement. In the instant case, the respondents issued the advertisement on 02.11.2023. The age-limit of the candidates though was mentioned in the advertisement, i.e. 18-35 years, but the cut-off date for determining the age limit had been omitted out. This was an error in the advertisement. The error was of such nature that without the cut-off date, the eligibility of the candidates would not have been possible to be determined. It is for this reason that the respondents cancelled the selection process under advertisement dated 02.11.2023 and came out with a fresh advertisement on 02.10.2024, which clearly indicated the requisite age, i.e. 18-35 years, as also the cut-off date for determining the age limit, i.e. 22.10.2024, the last date for applying given in the new advertisement. The advertisement dated 02.11.2023 being not in conformity with the notification dated 24.08.2023 rather lacking and defective in material aspects for determining the eligibility of the applicants, the respondents justly abandoned the same. (ii) Even if the case of the petitioner is to be considered on the basis of first advertisement issued on 02.11.2023, then also, she would not qualify for the simple reason that the petitioner, as per her own pleaded case, had crossed the age of 35 years on 24.11.2023-the last date for applying in terms of advertisement dated 02.11.2023. Petitioner attained the age of 35 years on 23.11.2023. It is well settled that eligibility is required to be maintained till the last date of the advertisement. The petitioner was not eligible even in terms of first advertisement dated 02.11.2023. (iii) Arabinda Rabha & Ors. was a decision where the candidates (respondents therein) were eligible as per the advertisement issued by the appellant. Therefore, while upholding the appellants’ right in the given facts to publish fresh advertisement, they were ordered to waive age bar in case the respondents applied under the new advertisement. Decision in Delhi Jal Board is not attracted to the facts of the case as the said decision refers to the case of compassionate appointment and discusses the policy to be applied while considering such cases, viz. Decision in Delhi Jal Board is not attracted to the facts of the case as the said decision refers to the case of compassionate appointment and discusses the policy to be applied while considering such cases, viz. the policy applicable at the time of death of deceased government servant or the one in force at the time of application by the dependent ward or the policy in vogue while considering the application. The ratio of other two decisions, i.e. Shaik Mahaboob John and Anil Kishore Pandit, is also not applicable to the case in hand as the respondents in the instant case had a bonafide and valid reason to cancel the selection process initiated by them under advertisement dated 02.11.2023. Additionally, as discussed above, the petitioner was not eligible even in terms of first advertisement dated 02.11.2023. 5. Hence, finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.