Judgment :- K.A. SWAMI, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 5.10.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15518 of 1994. 2. The petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondents 1 and 2 to admit her to the first year Bachelor of Physiotherapy Course for the academic year 1994-1995 against free seat in any one of the self-financing institutions at Madras or any other private self-financing institution conducting B.P.T. Course against a free seat on before a date to be fixed by this Court. 3. As per the Notification issued for admission to Professional Courses — M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B. Pharmacy/B.Sc. (Nursing)/B.P.T/B.O.T/B.M.R.Sc. for 1994-1995 Session, applications were required to be submit of on or before 15.7.1995 at 5.30 PM. The relevant potion of the Notification is as follows: “9. Last date for issue of Prospectus/Application forms at the Government Institutions — 15th July, 1994 5.30. PM. 10. Last date for Receipt of Application Forms for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. /Para Medical Courses at the Selection Committee Office — 15th July, 1994 at 5.30. PM.” So the last date and time for receipt off the application were fixed by the said notification. It was open to the intending applicants to send the applications even by post also. In fact, along with the application form, the Selection Committee supplied a cover with its address printed in which the application was required to be sent. The address printed on the cover is as follows: “The Secretary, Selection Committee, Sabarmathi Hostel, Kilpauk Medical College Hospital Campus, Madras-600010.” The Selection Committee also made an arrangement to collect the applications received by post from the Kilpauk Post Office by posting an officer there till 5.30 PM on 15.7.1994. The petitioner received the application form and the cover much earlier to 15.7.1994, as referred to by the learned single Judge. However, she sent the application by registered post on 14.7.1994 from the Gingee Post Office. The same was delivered to the Selection Committee on 19.7.1994. It is also stated on behalf of the Selection Committee that there are about 2000 such applications received beyond 15.7.1994 and the same could not be considered having regard to the fact that though they have all been sent by post but reached the Selection Committee after 15.7.1994. The same was delivered to the Selection Committee on 19.7.1994. It is also stated on behalf of the Selection Committee that there are about 2000 such applications received beyond 15.7.1994 and the same could not be considered having regard to the fact that though they have all been sent by post but reached the Selection Committee after 15.7.1994. As the application of the petitioner in question was received only on 19.7.1994, the same could not be considered like the other 2000 applications. 4. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition holding that the appellant/petitioner should have been careful to ensure that her application was delivered to the addressee within the time fixed, even if it was to be sent by post. Therefore, she was required to send the application much earlier to 15.7.1994 if it were to be sent by post. 5. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when the Selection Committee has accepted Post Office as an agency through which applications could be sent, the moment the application was handed over to the Post Office, prior to the last date fixed, it must be deemed to have been submitted to the Selection Committee on the date it is handed over to the Post Office. As the petitioner has handed over the cover to the Post Office to be sent through registered post on 14.7.1994, the application must be deemed to have been filed well within time irrespective of the fact that it was delivered after 15.7.1994. We find it very difficult to accept this submission. The notification, as already referred to, apart from giving option to the candidates to send applications through post, it further specifically provides that the last date for receipt of the applications is 15.7.1994 at 5.30 PM. The notification does not fix two dates; one for those who deliver the applications in person and another for those who send the applications by post. Therefore, whenever a notification calling for applications fixes the date and time within which the applications are to be received irrespective of the fact whether such applications are sent through post or by any other mode, as long as the same are not received within the time and date fixed, the same cannot be considered as having been received on the date it was handed over to the Post Office. 6. 6. There is one more reason why we should prefer this interpretation. In the case of recruitment to public services or admission to colleges, thousands of applications are received and if it is held that it is sufficient if the application is sent by post irrespective of the fact whether it is delivered to the addressee before the last date and time fixed for receipt of the applications, as long as it is posted before the last date fixed for receipt of applications, it would upset the entire scheme of the examination and also the scheme of admission to the colleges, because these are required to be done within the time frame. It is also possible that an application sent through registered post before the last date, sometimes it may be delivered even after a month or so. Such being the uncertainty, the Selection Committee or the Recruiting Body cannot be made to wait indefinitely. There is also the possibility of such applications being lost in the transit and not delivered. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa in Ananda Prasad v. State (AIR 1989 Orissa 130). No doubt, in that case it was held that when the Post Office was accepted as an agent for the despatch and delivery, although the application reached the addressee beyond the last date, as long as it had been delivered to the post office well within the last date, it must be deemed to have been sent in time. Further, that was a case in which applications were invited only by registered post and not by any other mode. Such a situation does not arise in this case. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon in that decision related to commercial contracts between the two contracting parties and no third party or public interest was involved. Further, that was a case in which applications were invited only by registered post and not by any other mode. Such a situation does not arise in this case. The decision of the Supreme Court relied upon in that decision related to commercial contracts between the two contracting parties and no third party or public interest was involved. In the case of I.T. Commissioner v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd. ( AIR 1954 S.C. 429 ), the assessee manufactured lanterns and other glasswares at its works in Aundh State; the assessee, in the relevant accounting years, secured some contract for the supply of lanterns and other glasswares to the Government of India; the price of the goods supplied under the contract were paid by cheques drawn on the Reserve bank of India at Bombay; the cheques used to be received by the assessee in Aundh and cashed through its bank at Bombay; and the assessee being a non-resident Company, its liability to British Indian Income-tax depended upon its receipt of income within British India. In those circumstances, the question that arose for consideration was as to whether the profits on the sales accrued and received in Aundh State, where it received payment by receipt of cheques, could be considered as having been received by the assessee in british India in as much as the cheques were drawn on the bank of Bombay and hand been cashed at Bombay. It was held that a cheque, unless it is dishonored, was payment and, therefore, the payment took effect from the delivery of the cheques, as cheques were accepted by the assessee unconditionally, in complete discharge of the claim for the price of goods. The other decisions also related to transactions of commercial nature. No public interest was involved. 8. In the case of admissions to colleges and recruitments, there is no contractual relationship. Further, public interest and the interest of other applicants who have submitted their applications well in time are involved. Examinations and recruitments are to be held according to the time schedule. Academic term has to commence from a particular date, and well before that date admissions are to be finalised, Seats are limited. Therefore, selection has to be made. The selection once made cannot be upset on the ground that the applications of some of the applicants sent by post are received later. Public interest will suffer. Academic term has to commence from a particular date, and well before that date admissions are to be finalised, Seats are limited. Therefore, selection has to be made. The selection once made cannot be upset on the ground that the applications of some of the applicants sent by post are received later. Public interest will suffer. Application of the principle of agency of such cases will endanger and upset the entire scheme of admissions and recruitment, and thereby public interest will suffer. Individual interest must yield to public interest. 9. In Sivaramakrishna Pillai v. Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue (84 L.W. 865), Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules, 1965, which provided for sending applications by registered post, was considered. In that case, another Rule specifically provided that the authority can condone the delay even if the applications are received beyond the time upto 15 days. In the light of those provisions, that case was considered. Therefore, it is not possible to apply that case to the case on hand. 10. For all the reasons stated above, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is rejected. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 15912 of 1994 is also dismissed. No costs.