Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is an applicant for admission to the part time B Tech degree course in the Government Engineering College, Trichur for the year 1987-88. Petitioner has not been admitted to the course. He is only No. 2 in the waiting list. On the other hand, respondents 3 and 4, who, according to the petitioner have secured lesser marks, have been accorded higher ranks, with Respondents No. 3 admitted to the course and respondent No. 1, given the first place in the waiting list. 2. The petitioner is one of those who has got the experience envisaged in Clause2(b) of the prospectus for the course, Ext. P6. The last date for admission as originally fixed was 10-5-1987 but it was subsequently extended to 14-5-1987. It is stated by the petitioner that he submitted his application on 1-5-1987. As on 14-5-1987, the petitioner had a total experience of 7 years and 190 days. 3. The Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of selecting the candidates for admission to the course had evolved their own rules in relation to the evaluation of the eligibility of candidates for admission. As per the rules so evolved, (a copy of which is Ext.R2(a)), four marks are allotted to a candidate for every completed year of experience, upto 10 years, counted on the basis of every completed three months period. So computed, along with his academic qualifications, which account for 72.15 marks, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded 102.15 marks, for the purpose of admission to the course having regard to his experience of just over 71/2 years. This will be so, only if the petitioner's experience is reckoned upto the last date for submission of applications, namely, 14-5-1987. But the Selection Committee, as per their rules evolved by them, reckoned the experience for the purpose of awarding marks only upto the date of application. Petitioner had submitted his application with the necessary experience certificates on 1-5-1987. He was therefore awarded marks only for his experience: upto 1-5-1987, though he continued to be in service to gain experience during the rest of the period from 1-5-1987 to 14-5-1987 as well. Thus he was awarded only 29 marks for experience as against 30 due. 4. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted their applications for the course only after the petitioner, but in time. Thus he was awarded only 29 marks for experience as against 30 due. 4. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted their applications for the course only after the petitioner, but in time. Their experience has been reckoned with reference to the date 14-5-1987 and thus they have been awarded marks of 101.88 and 101.15 respectively. Thus in making the selection, the Selection Committee awarded marks to the petitioner, for experience, reckoning his experience only till 1-5-1987 (namely 7 years, 5 months and 27 days) resulting in reduction of one mark. If marks had been awarded for his experience upto 14-5-1987, he would have got selected with 102.15 marks as against 101.88 and 101.15 obtained by respondents 3 and 4. 5. The petitioner contends that limiting the award of marks to the date of application is arbitrary and obnoxious to commonsense and that he should also have been allotted marks with reference to his experience upto 14-5-1987, the last date for applications. Counsel for the petitioner points out that any other reckoning will result in discrimination between candidates similarly placed. He points out that qualification for admission has to be reckoned with reference to the last date for receipt of applications and not with reference to any other intermediate date, varying from candidate to candidate, and if so reckoned, the petitioner becomes entitled to 102.15 marks, which place him above both respondents 3 and 4. 6. Though the Liaison Officer appearing for respondents 1 and 2 refuted these contentions raised by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The last date for application was 14-5-1987. The petitioner was careful and diligent enough in making his application sufficiently early on 1-5-1987 itself, long prior to the last date. But this should not be used to jeopardise his case for admission. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner did not have any experience from the period 1-5-1987 to 14-5-1987. The fixation of the date of application as the criterion for awarding marks for experience is quite arbitrary and irrational. There is absolutely no basis for the same. It is true that in the case of a candidate who does not continue to have experience between the date of application and the last date, he cannot get marks for the post application period. There is absolutely no basis for the same. It is true that in the case of a candidate who does not continue to have experience between the date of application and the last date, he cannot get marks for the post application period. But if the candidate does have such experience (as the case of the petitioner) he should not be denied marks for the subsequent period. Otherwise it will be a case of different standards and yardsticks being adopted for different candidates. There is no sanctity about the date of application vis-a-vis the award of marks for experience. Adopting that date as the cut off point is irrational in the case of a candidate who continues to have experience even thereafter. It cannot be that a candidate who is diligent and applies early does so on peril of his getting less marks than another candidate who takes his own time to make the application. 7. I am therefore of the opinion that the marks as fixed by the selection committee have to be awarded with reference to the last date for submission of the applications (so long as the candidate has experience till that date). Since there is no case that the petitioner does not have such experience, the petitioner has to be awarded marks for experience with reference to the date 14-5-1987 in which case, it is not in dispute that he will become entitled to 102.15 marks as against 101.15 actually awarded to him. The selection made by respondents 1 and 2 has therefore to be quashed in so far as it relates to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner will be treated as having obtained 102.15 marks and his claim for admission to the B Tech degree course will be adjudicated on that basis. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to admit the petitioner forthwith to the course. The competing claims of respondents 3 and 4 for admission will have to be adjudicated by the Selection Committee in the light of the observations made herein above regarding the award of marks. The Original Petition is allowed. No costs.