JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge in M. P. No. 2039/83 decided on 24-7-1986 allowing the writ petition of the petitioner (respondent in this appeal) by setting aside selection and appointment of appellant No. 3 as Librarian in the University and directing to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Librarian. ( 2. ) SECTION 11 of the M. P. Vishva Vidyalay Adhiniyam, 1973, declares that kuladhipati, Kulpati, the Rector, the Deans of the Faculties, the Registrar, the Dean of students Welfare and such other officers in the service of the University as may be declared by the Statutes to be officers, shall be the Officers of the University. The registrar shall be a whole time salaried officer of the University and shall act as the secretary of the Executive Council, Academic Council and the Academic Planning and Evaluation Board. Under Section 18 the appointment of officers other than kulpati and Registrar shall be made in such manner and the conditions of their service and powers and duties shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Under Clause 4 of Statute No. 20 the Executive Council is authorised to prescribe the qualifications which a candidate should possess for being eligible to hold any of office mentioned in para 1 of the Statute. The prescribed qualifications shall be given due publicity and the Selection Committee shall select the candidates with due regard to the qualifications prescribed. Under clause 1 of Statute No. 20, post of Librarian amongst others was declared to be an officer of the University. The post was advertised on 27- 9-1982 as follows :-University of Jabalpur no. Estt. /82/1115 Jabalpur, dated 27th Sept 1982 advertisement applications on plain paper from candidates in their own handwriting are invited for a post of Librarian of this University carrying the pay scale of Rs. 700-50-1250 (N. P.) (likely to be revised) and other allowances as are admissible to the University employees. Essential qualifications : At least II Class Masters degree with B. Lib. in library/information Science or any other equivalent degree or Certificate issued by any organisation which is approved by Govt. 700-50-1250 (N. P.) (likely to be revised) and other allowances as are admissible to the University employees. Essential qualifications : At least II Class Masters degree with B. Lib. in library/information Science or any other equivalent degree or Certificate issued by any organisation which is approved by Govt. of India like INSDOC or at least II class Bachelors degree with Masters degree in Library/information science or any other equivalent which is approved by Govt. of India, like insdoc etc. Desirable: (i) At least 10 years experience of Library work on a responsible post in a university or sufficiently large library,. (ii) Adequate knowledge and experience of modern techniques of reference service and documentation service. Qualifications are relaxable in case of candidates of exceptional merit and experience. Qualifications being equal, preference shall be given to the candidates belonging to scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes. Applications accompanied with the copies of certificates, document and a crossed postal order of Rs. 5/- payable to the Registrar, university of Jabalpur, must reach the University office latest by 30th October 1982. The candidates already in employment at present should submit their applications through proper channel. Registrar; university of Jabalpur, jabalpur. In all 17 candidates applied for the post including the appellant No. 3 and the respondent. Out of them, 14 were called for interview but only 5 appeared at the interview including the appellant No. 3 and the respondent on 18th June 1983. The selection committee consisted of Kulpati, two experts on Library Science and the registrar. Another expert did not attend the meeting. The Selection Committee found as follows :- "the Committee investigated the merits of all the candidates including those who wanted to be considered in absent!. After assessing the merits of the candidates the Committee decided that the following names be recommended for appointment as Librarian in the order of merit: (1) Shri Y. L. Chopra, (2) Shri Lakshman Richaria. The Committee however felt that Shri Chopra is much above in merit and experience over Shri Richaria. " Accordingly, appointment order was issued to the appellant No. 3 and he is working as Librarian in University for the last over 3 years or so. ( 3. ) THE respondent challenged the appointment of the appellant No. 3 as librarian by filing writ petition M. P. No. 2039/83 on the following grounds : (i) The appellant NO. " Accordingly, appointment order was issued to the appellant No. 3 and he is working as Librarian in University for the last over 3 years or so. ( 3. ) THE respondent challenged the appointment of the appellant No. 3 as librarian by filing writ petition M. P. No. 2039/83 on the following grounds : (i) The appellant NO. 3 did not possess the requisite qualifications as laid down in the advertisement, that is to say, 10 years experience of library work in University or sufficiently large library. (ii) The appellant No. 3 being in the services of Rajendra prasad Agricultural University, Patna, it was necessary for him to submit his application through proper channel as per advertisement but he directly applied for the post (iii)The advertisement specifically mentioned that the applications must reach the university office latest by 30th October 1982 but the application of the appelant 3 was received on 2-11-1982 and, as such, his application could not have been considered, and (iv) the respondent fulfilled all the qualifications for the post and was better qualified than the appellant No. 3, and, in fact, he should have been given the appointment. The petition was opposed by the University and the appellant No. 3 by filing separate returns. According to them, the appellant No. 3 was fully qualified and he had the requisite experience of 10 years as librarian in a sufficiently large library, the application of the appellant No. 3 was despatched by registered post on 26-10-1982and, therefore, it was deemed to have received before 30th October 1982 and accordingly his application for appointment was considered Moreover, it was open to the University to relax the last date for submission of the applications for appointment. What was necessary was that there should be sufficient notice to all candidates who wish to compete and apply. Regarding forwarding of the applications through proper channel, the condition was imposed so that there may not be any difficulty in getting the selected candidate relieved by the parent department on his appointment. The appellant No. 3 held Ist class Masters degree in Library Science and he had worked as Librarian Grade ii in Delhi Public Library from 1966 to 1980 and thereafter he was Assistant Librarian in. Rajendra Prasad Agricultural University, Patna, and posted in Bihar Veterinary college as a Campus Librarian. The appellant No. 3 held Ist class Masters degree in Library Science and he had worked as Librarian Grade ii in Delhi Public Library from 1966 to 1980 and thereafter he was Assistant Librarian in. Rajendra Prasad Agricultural University, Patna, and posted in Bihar Veterinary college as a Campus Librarian. The Selection Committee found that the appellant No. 3 is much above in merit and experience over the respondent and so he was placed at no. 1 and respondent at No. 2. ( 4. ) THE learned Single Judge found that there is no basis for the respondents allegations that the appellant No. 3 did not fulfil the requisite academic qualification or experience. There is no challenge to the fact that appellant No. 3 holds 1st Class masters degree in Library Science. Regarding experience, between the period 1966 to 1980 the appellant No. 3 has worked as Librarian Grade II in Delhi Public Library which is an institute of international repute having 9 lac books and 350 members in its staff and thereafter the appellant No. 3 worked as Assistant Librarian in the University. About non-forwarding of the application by the appellant No. 3 through proper channel, the learned Judge found that the requirement only imposed an obligation upon the candidates to apply through proper channel, but there is no corresponding obligation on the part of the University to select only amongst the persons who applied through proper channel. Non-compliance of it, therefore, cannot have the effect of invalidating the application or the appointment. In the event of appointment of such a candidate who did not apply through proper channel if any difficulty arose in respect of joining his new assignment so offered, it will be a matter between the candidate and his former employer. The mere fact that the former employer did not give consent will not render appointment of the appellant No. 3 as invalid. About acceptance Of the appellant No. 3s application on 2-11-1982 i. e. after the prescribed date, the learned judge found this to be against condition of eligibility and the University had no power to relax it without rational justification because in case of public authority it was bound to give effect to the condition of eligibility set up by it and could not depart from it. As per the advertisement, the applications must reach the University latest by 30th october 1982. As per the advertisement, the applications must reach the University latest by 30th october 1982. The use of the word latest is significant and gives an impression that the time limit stipulated therein had to be strictly adhered to. Therefore, the appellant No. 3 was not eligible for consideration. The Court must as far as possible avoid a construction which would render the word used by the author of the document meaningless and futile. The University clearly intended to lay down the time limit within which the application must reach the University. Therefore, the appellant No. 3 was disqualified for being considered. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive by requiring the executive to act within the procedure prescribed. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the appointment of the appellant No. 3 was quashed and the university was directed to consider the candidature of the respondent for appointment as Librarian. ( 5. ) ACCORDING to Shri M. V. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the appellants (i)fixing of time limit for receiving applications is not a statutory requirement nor it is an eligibility clause. Condition of eligibility is about the academic qualification and the experience and not the date of receipt of application, (ii) The application was despatched from Patna on 26-10-1982 and received here on 2-ll-1982while the last date was 23-10-1982. Even if the application was received after the last date, it was within the power of the University to accept the application beyond that date. Nobody came forward to say that they also wanted to apply if time for receiving applications was to be extended, (iii) The appellant No. 3 was a highly qualified person and was found much superior to the respondent as recommended by the Selection Committee. The appellant No. 3 is working satisfactorily as Librarian for over 3 years and it would seriously prejudice him, having left his job at Patna and joined in the University as librarian, if the order is maintained. On the other hand, the respondent is holding IIIrd class Masters degree and he was not eligible for being appointed, and (iv) no mala fides have been alleged. On the other hand, the respondent is holding IIIrd class Masters degree and he was not eligible for being appointed, and (iv) no mala fides have been alleged. According to Shri V. S. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant No. 3 was not eligible for appointment as his application was received beyond the last date. Besides, it was also not sent through proper channel, whereas the application of the respondent suffered from no infirmities and he had the requisite qualification. ( 6. ) ACCORDING to us, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the condition in the advertisment that the applications for the post of Librarian must reach the university latest by 30th October 1982 was the condition of eligibility. The conditions of eligibility were academic qualifications and experience. The appellant No. 3 was holding Ist class Masters degree in Library Science and he had the requisite experience of working as Librarian for over 10 years in the Delhi Public Library, an institute of international repute having 9 lac books and 350 staff. The essential qualification for eligibility was the academic qualification but the qualification of 10 years experience was desirable. The advertisement further stipulated that qualification is relaxable in case of candidates of exceptional merit and experience. The learned Single Judge did not consider that even regarding academic qualifications and experience, the qualifications are relaxable in case of a candidate of exceptional merit and experience. Prescribing the last date for receiving applications was for the administrative convenience so that all the applications are received by a particular date. It does not mean that applications received after that can in no case be considered by the university. It was not stipulated that the applications received after the last date will not be entertained. It was in the discretion of the University to accept the application received after that date if it found the applicant to be a man of exceptional merit and experience. But in the present case the application was sent by registered post from patna on 26-10-1982 and in the ordinary course the letter ought to have reached the university on or before 30th October 1982 but the present postal delays are well known and the appellant No. 3 should not be penalised for the same. But in the present case the application was sent by registered post from patna on 26-10-1982 and in the ordinary course the letter ought to have reached the university on or before 30th October 1982 but the present postal delays are well known and the appellant No. 3 should not be penalised for the same. The Selection Committee found the appellant No. 3 of outstanding merit and much above the respondent. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Selection committee or by the University in selecting and appointing the appellant No. 3 as librarian who is much superior to the respondent in academic qualifications and experience. In the petition the petitioner only claimed that he is working as Assistant librarian in Rani Durgavati Vishva Vidyalay since 1972, he is M. Com. and Bachelor in library Science without disclosing whether he had a IInd Masters class degree with bachelor in Library Science which was the essential qualification as per the advertisement. It appears from the record and also being conceded by the respondent that he was IIIrd class in M. Com. and Bachelor of Library Science from Ujjain university but subsequently he did his Bachelor of Library Science again from Rani durgavati Vishwa Vidyalay and got 1st class. Therefore, it is doubtful if he had the requisite academic qualification though he had 10 years experience but he has been found inferior to the appellant No. 3. This plea was not taken in the return but it has been taken for the first time in the present appeal. So it is not possible to entertain this plea. However, there is some force in what has been stated by Shri Tamaskar that the essential qualifications prescribed were II class Masters degree with Bachelor in library Science or IInd class Bachelors degree with Masters degree in Library science. The respondent came in the first category but he held only IIIrd class Masters degree though he is now holding Ist class. Bachelors degree in Library Science. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition of the respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the order regarding refund of security amount is maintained. Appeal allowed.