This Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 17-5-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Heard Shri R. N. Singh and G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri B. N. Singh learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 4. 3. The petitioner had been granted a fellowship for completing Ph. D. under the Faculty Improvement Programme. By the order dated 7-4-2004 passed by the University Grant Commission, the Fellowship awarded to the appellant for completing Ph. D. under the Faculty Improvement Programme Scheme under the 10th plan has been cancelled on the ground that on the date of submission of her application, the appellant did not possess three years teaching experience. The learned Single Judge upheld that order and hence this appeal. 4. Clause 3. 4 of the said Scheme, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application before us states: " (3. 4) The teacher should have at least 3 years of teaching experience on the date of submitting the application for award of teacher fellowship. " 5. The language of Clause 3. 4 is very clear. It is a settled principle of interpretation that when the language of a provision is plain and clear then the plain and literal meaning should be given to it, and the Court should not stretch or distort that meaning. 6. In Gurudevdatta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 1980 , the Supreme Court observed: "it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. " 7. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. " 7. Similarly, in Pattangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj, AIR 2001 SC 1121 , the Supreme Court observed that where the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous the same has to be given effect. It is not open to the Court to first create an ambiguity and then look for some principle of interpretation. 8. Clause 3. 4 uses the word "at least three years of teaching experience on the date of submitting the application. " The words "at least 3 years" are significant. The language used here is categorical. 9. Thus on the date when the appellant filed her application she should have at least 3 years teaching experience. As her teaching experience was three months short of three years hence she was not eligible as per clause 3. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pattangrao Kadam v. Prithviraj, AIR 2001 SC 1121 , That decision pertains to an employee confirmed in Government service as a Statistical Officer. In that case the Supreme Court has held that the appointment of the appellant as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer though he did not possess the necessary five years experience is regular and not void. 10. In our opinion this decision is wholly distinguishable. It pertains to a different class of persons and has nothing to do with the Fellowship under the Scheme. Moreover, Ram Sarups case (supra) has been distinguished by a Division Bench of our Court in Sushil Kumar Dwivedi v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, 2003 (1) LBESR 7 (All) : 2003 (2) UPLBEC 1216 (vide para 15 ). It was observed therein that in Ram Sarups case (supra) it has been specifically noted in para 2 of the judgment that there was specific power in the Government to relax the requirement of qualification. 11. It was observed therein that in Ram Sarups case (supra) it has been specifically noted in para 2 of the judgment that there was specific power in the Government to relax the requirement of qualification. 11. There are a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court in which it was held that if a teacher does not possess the necessary qualifications on the relevant date then his appointment cannot be held to be valid merely because subsequently he acquired such qualifications, e. g. U. P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana, JT 1994 (1) SC 94; Kishori Lal Charmakar v. District Education Officer, 1998 (9) SCC 395 , etc. In Dr. Prit Singh v. S. K. Mangal, 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 714, the Supreme Court observed: "if he was not eligible for appointment in terms of the prescribed qualifications on the date he was appointed by the Managing Committee subject to the approval of the Vice Chancellor, then later he cannot become eligible after the qualifications for the post were amended. As such we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court, that on the date of appointment the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications and as such his appointment had to be quashed. " 12. The Latin maxim "dura Lex Sed Lex" means "the law is hard, but it is the law. " Hence it must be obeyed. Once we start departing from law on equitable considerations then the rule of law gets undermind and jeopardized. Equity can only supplement the law but cannot supplant it vide 2004 (2) LBESR 196 (All): 2004 ALJ 993, Chhetrapal Singh v. State of U. P. and others. If there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail, even if it causes hardship to some persons. No doubt if there is some ambiguity in a rule equitable considerations may apply, but in the present case the provision of clause 3. 4 is very clear. For the reasons given above, this appeal is dismissed. .