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. 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 o