JUDGMENT : S. C. Mathur, J. 1. We had by our short order dated 20th December 1989 allowed these writ petitions and quashed the order of the Returning Officer and Patron of the Lucknow University Students Union, Lucknow rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners for the office of Junior Liberarian of the said Union for the Session 1989-90. WE now proceed to give reasons for the said order. 2. The petitioners who are students of L.L.B. (first year) class in the Lucknow University are aggrieved by rejection of their nomination papers for the office of Junior Librarian in the Lucknow University Union, election of which was scheduled to be held on December, 22, 1989. The Union is an association of the students of Lucknow University. Elections to various offices in the Union are conducted in, accordance with the provisions of the Union Constitution. Both the petitioners joined the L.L.B. course after obtaining Masters Degree in Commerce from the same University. The only ground for rejecting their, nomination papers is that they are not "post-graduate students" within the meaning of paragraph 8 (Hi) of the Union Constitution and are therefore disqualified from holding the office of the Junior Librarian. Paragraph 8 of the constitution reads as follows :- "8. The following shall be the officers of the Union a (i) (a) The Patron, (b) The President, (c) The Vice-President, (d) The Treasurer, (e) The Secretary, (f) The Senior Librarian, and (g) The Junior Librarian. " (ii) Members (b) (c) (e) and (g) of the preceding clause shall be elected directly by the ordinary members of the Union. (iii) The" candidates for (b) (c) and (e) of clause (i) must have been students of the University for at least one year and those for (g) must be Postgraduate students. Once who has once held any of these four offices shall not be eligible for re-election to the same office." Under paragraph 13 of the constitution Vice Chancellor is the Patron of the Union. Under paragraph 16 and 18 he nominates the Treasurer and Senior Librarian. Holders of those two offices have to be members of teaching staff. No election is held in respect of the offices of Patron, Treasurer and Senior Librarian. For the rest of the offices elections are held. Under paragraph 16 and 18 he nominates the Treasurer and Senior Librarian. Holders of those two offices have to be members of teaching staff. No election is held in respect of the offices of Patron, Treasurer and Senior Librarian. For the rest of the offices elections are held. For the elected offices eligibility qualifications are prescribed in clause (iii) For the offices of President, Vice-President and the Secretary the candidate must have been a Student of the University for atleast one year. Thus freshers in the University are excluded. For the office of Junior Librarian the candidate must be "Post Graduate student". The term "Post Graduate student" is the subject matter of interpretation in these two petitions. 3. According to the University the term "Post Graduate student" means a student pursuing a course of study which will lead him to a Master's Degree and excludes a student who is pursuing a course of study which will lead him to a Bachelors' Degree, even though admission to the Bachelor's Degree Course may be available only after obtaining some graduate qualification like Bachelor of Arts. 4. The petitioners on the other hand contends that the term denotes students who are pursuing studies in a course admission whereto is available only after obtaining graduate qualification. According to them since admission to L.L.B. class is available only after obtaining a graduate qualification a student of L.L.B. class is also a Post-Graduate student although the degree awarded to him is Bachelor's Degree in Law. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find considerable difficulty in accepting the plea of the Lucknow University. The term "Post-Graduate" or "Post Graduate student" has not been defined in the Union Constitution. Our attention has not been invited to any other publication of the University like Prospectus, Ordinances, Regulations where the term may have -been defined. In the circumstance we are left to interpret the term according to its ordinary dictionary meaning. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary the term "Post" has been given several meanings. One of the meanings which has relevance to the present context is "posterior in position". In the circumstance we are left to interpret the term according to its ordinary dictionary meaning. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary the term "Post" has been given several meanings. One of the meanings which has relevance to the present context is "posterior in position". In the same Dictionary the term "Posterior" has been given the following meanings "next, following, coming after, after in time : subsequent, after in place." By applying any of these meanings Post-Graduation would mean after Graduation and Post-Graduation course would mean a course of study after Graduation. Thus Post-Graduation course would be a course for which possession of Graduation qualification is a must. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the University that for admission to the L.L B. course possession of Graduate qualification is obligatory. In view of this position L.L.B. course will have to be treated as a Post-Graduate course and a student of L.L.B. class will have to be treated as a "Post-Graduate student". The position becomes explicit from the meanings of the term "Post-Graduate" given in the same Dictionary. These are "relating to, or engaged in study following graduation......, a student continuing his education after graduation from High School or College". 5. In the American College Dictionary the term "Post-Graduate" has been given the following meanings-"pertaining to or pursuing a course of study after graduation". One of the meanings given in this Dictionary to the term "Post" Is "after". Thus "Post-Graduate" would mean "after graduate" or "after graduation" and "Post-Graduate student" would mean a student pursuing a course of study entry whereto is available only after obtaining graduate qualification or for which graduation is the minimum prescribed qualification. 6. The above interpretation flows also from the ratonale behind the Rule. The obvious purpose of reserving the office of Junior Librarian for a Post-Graduate student is to ensure that the office is held by a senior student of the University. For the purpose of seniority possession of graduate qualification is considered sufficient. If the interpretation put by the learned counsel for the University is accepted it would lead to anomalous results. More senior students would be eliminated from holding the office of Junior Librarian and comparatively junior students would be eligible for holding the said office. For the purpose of seniority possession of graduate qualification is considered sufficient. If the interpretation put by the learned counsel for the University is accepted it would lead to anomalous results. More senior students would be eliminated from holding the office of Junior Librarian and comparatively junior students would be eligible for holding the said office. Thus a student in first year of Masters Degree course will be eligible to/hold office while a student in third year of the L.L.B. course will be ineligible. The seniority of the former in the University in terms of Degree qualification would be two years and few months while that of the latter would be four years and few months if he joins the L.L.B. class after obtaining the Bachelors qualification and it would be six years and few months if he joins the L.L.B. course after obtaining Masters Degree in addition to the Bachelors Degree, as in the present case. The present petitioners joined the L.L.B. course after doing M. Com. The petitioners are obviously much senior to a student of first year in the Masters Degree course. The law' makes are presumed to act reasonably. Therefore, the interpretation on the Rules should be such as leads to reasonableness and not one which leads to absurdity. If the interpretation put by the learned counsel for the University is accepted it would lead to absurdity indicated hereinabove. Therefore, we must accept the interpretation canvassed by the petitioners and reject the one canvassed by the learned counsel for the University. 7. Learned counsel for the University, however, submits that in educational matters the interpretation should be left to educational authorities and the Courts should not interfere with the interpretation put by the said authorities. In support of the proposition he has cited Krishna Priya Ganguli v. Lucknow University, AIR 1984 SC 186 . Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the following observation contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the report :- "18.........The High Court could not have given a go-by to the rules framed by admission committee. In support of the proposition he has cited Krishna Priya Ganguli v. Lucknow University, AIR 1984 SC 186 . Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the following observation contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the report :- "18.........The High Court could not have given a go-by to the rules framed by admission committee. It was a matter for decision of the academic body and since the academic body had applied the rules in a bona tide manner to all the students equally, there was no jurisdiction whatsoever on the part of the High Court to interfere with the internal working of an academic institution concerned with imparting higher education in the field of Post-Graduate course in medicine. The rules prescribing that horsemanship must be in the same subject is not inconsistent with the ordinance. It is supplementary to the ordinance and amplifies the same. Hence there is no inconsistency and the High Court was therefore clearly wrong........." "19..........The condition regarding putting in two years work in the department concerned could not have been dispensed with. The High Court should hot have interfered with the decision of the academic body. The High Court cannot relax the rules or re-write them -" (emphasis supplied) The learned counsel has placed specific reliance upon the emphasised portions in the above extract. The above observations have been made in the context that the interpretation put by the academic authority was uniformly applied. In the present case there is lack of evidence that the interpretation now put on the term "Post Graduate student" was uniformly applied. 8. The Petitioner Rajiv Kumar Tripathi has given instances of some L.L.B. students who were allowed to contest for the office of Junior Librarian. these, instances have been given in paragraph 17 of his writ petition wherein names of Yogya Dutt Sharma, Rajendra Dwivedi and Virepdra Bhatia have been mentioned. In paragraph 18 he has charged the University Authority with practising discriminations. The learned counsel for the Lucknow University neither affirmed the averments made in paragraph 17 nor denied them. He merely pleaded that over since the present Returning Officer assumed office as such he has never allowed a student of L. L. B. to contest for Junior Librarian ship. It was also stated that the present Returning Officer assumed office as such about four years ago. He merely pleaded that over since the present Returning Officer assumed office as such he has never allowed a student of L. L. B. to contest for Junior Librarian ship. It was also stated that the present Returning Officer assumed office as such about four years ago. We are not concerned with the interpretation of a particular officer of the University bat we are concerned with the consistent interpretation of the University. For consistent interpretation of the' University the opposite parties will have to show that L.L.B. class students have never been treated as Post-graduate students. This evidence is lacking in the present case. We have observed hereinabove that our attention has not been invited to any publication of the University wherein L. L. B. students may have been described as undergraduate students. Accordingly the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the University is of no assistance to him. The learned counsel for the University has also cited Vice Chancellor Utkal University v. S. K. Ghosh, AIR 1954 SC 217 for submitting that the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot act" as a court of appeal. We do not intend to convert ourselves into appellate authorities while examining the validity of the orders passed by the Returning Officer and the patron (Vice Chancellor) but we have to see that the rules contained in the Union Constitution are uniformly applied. In the present case, as already indicated, the rules do not appear to have been uniformly applied. The University cannot adopt one standard at one election and another standard at another election- We have examined the validity of the orders of the Returning Officer and the Vice Chancellor from this angle and also from the angle of the intention behind the rules contained in the Union Constitution. Our approach does not appear to be inconsistent with the dictum-laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the University. In view of the above we allow the writ petitions and quash the orders of the Returning Officer and the Patron of the Lucknow University Students Union Tucknow rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioners for the office of Junior Librarian of the said Union for the session 1989-90. The petitioners will be allowed to participate in the election for the said post. The petitioners will be allowed to participate in the election for the said post. It is clarified that the petitioners' nomination shall be treated as valid. Petition allowed.