PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) REASON why a cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met and cannot be ignored in an individual case is that there may be other persons who may have applied, had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others. (See AIR 1998 SC 91 State of Rajasthan vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt ). Stating the same, but with a different facit, is 1990 (3) scc 655 , District Collector and Chairman vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi: when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint person with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are variable. ( 2 ) WOULD the aforesaid reasoning and consequently the principle apply where the advertisement inviting applications does not require the qualification in praesenti, acquiring the qualification by a future date being stipulated. Prima-facie not. But in such a situation, other problems may arise. In 1993 supp. (3) SCC 168. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan and Ors. , the supreme Court noted the said related problems as under:- "10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz. , even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus, swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/ notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged the only certain date for the scrutiny for the qualifications will be the last date for the making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the selection committee in the present case, as argued by Sh. Manoj Swarup tcok into consideration the requisite qualification as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preperring application, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself, the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this court in A. P. Public Service commission, Hyderabad Vs. B. Sarat chandra and District Collector and chairman, Vizianagaram Social welfare Residential School Society, vizianagaram Vs. M. Tripura Sundari devi. " ( 3 ) THE positive side and attainment of public good when requirement relating to qualifications are postponed to a future date was noted by the Supreme Court in 1993 supp (2) SCC 611, Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekher and Anr. :- " The fact is that the appellants did not pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. :- " The fact is that the appellants did not pass the examination and were fully qualified for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to Comparatively Superior merits. It was in the public interest that better candidates who were Fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, not with standing that the resuits of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. " ( 4 ) I have taken the liberty to preface the present judgement with the two view points afore-stated as the present case requires harmony between legal principles and aspirations of the young petitioners who are fresh graduates in engineering and at the very thresh hold of their carrier, in the first competitive examination taken by them, they have come out with flying colours but benefit of the achievement is being denied on the ground that though eligible when their achievement was put to scrutiny but were ineligible at a date prior thereto. Do no rob us of our victory for no fault of ours, cry the petitioners. Why should we suffer if our university delayed the declaration of results? in any case, late declaration of results by our university has neither deprived any third party of his right nor has it created a situation which could be exploited as per the situations contemplated by Supreme Court in Rekha chaturvedi s case (Supra) say the petitioner. Before the respondent declared its results, in which we have succeeded, we acquired the qualifications, say the petitioner. By allowing us to take its examination, on basis of comparative merits, the respondent has been able to get the best talent available so why should the law be interpreted where the sound principle of comparative superior merit as propounded in Ashok Kumar Sharma s, case (Supra) is jettisoned urge the petitioners. ( 5 ) ON what principles should the rules of construction be based? ( 5 ) ON what principles should the rules of construction be based? Is there one overriding principle from which the rules of construction can be deduced? Should at all the rules of construction conform to a single doctrine? The existing stream of authorities point that no single maxim or axiom exists by reference to which the correct solution of all the diverse cases that arise in practice can be found. However, if law mandates that everyone is presumed to know it, law must yield at least one tool for it interpretation and understanding. The common man who is presumed to know the law is neither an empiricist nor a pragmatist. He understands by instinct. This instinct guides the common man to test a proposed rule, by its practical bearing upon normal human activities and expectations. It is by this interpretation that the common man forms an opinion of the purpose of the law, which at its bottom is to promote justice and convenience. ( 6 ) AN advertisement of futuristic import is the foundation of the conventional chronical of this case. Respondent BSNL issued an advertisement inviting application to fill up about 3000 posts of graduate Engineer Junior telecom Officers (JTOs) through a competitive examination to beheld on 9. 6. 2002 on All India basis from amongst qualified graudate engineers. Under the caption eligibility following was stated: "3. Eligibility: a) Educational" Applicant must posses as on 31. 7. 2002 Bachelor of engineering/ Bachelor of Technology degree from a recognized engineering college/ university in any of the following disciplines or in equivalent engineering disciplines: (i) Telecommunication engineering (ii) Electronics Engineering, (iii) Radio Engineering, (iv) Computer engineering, or (v) Electrical engineering. Candidates appearing in the final year examination of the Engineering Degree course can also sit in the examination however, only those applicants will be considered eligible for appointment who are declared passed or have been issued provisional Degrees / Mark-Sheet on/ or prior to 31. 7. 2002. The applicants would therefore need to produce mark- sheet / Degree Certificate / provisional degree certificate issued upto 31. 7. 2002 at the time of verification of documents to be eligible for appointment. " ( 7 ) NOW, one thing is clear. The competitive examination was to be held on 9. 6. 2002 and date by which the applicant was to possess the required degree was 31. 7. 7. 2002 at the time of verification of documents to be eligible for appointment. " ( 7 ) NOW, one thing is clear. The competitive examination was to be held on 9. 6. 2002 and date by which the applicant was to possess the required degree was 31. 7. 2002 i. e. a date in the future. It stands clarified that possession of a provisional degree / mark sheet by 31. 7. 2002 would do. Thus, candidates in the final year of their respective degree course stood attracted to sit for the competitive examination since all the universities in India conduct the final exams during April-May each year and results are generally out by mid July. Most of the universities have their academic year commencing from July of the calendar year, ending in May of the ensuing year. By allowing candidates who were in the final year of their degree course to sit for the competitive examination, the respondent was obviously attracting the best talent available and for said purpose had made the process broad based. Petitioners who were in the final year of their degree course took the competitive examination conducted by the respondent on 9. 6. 2002. They were not only declared successful but were placed sufficiently high up in merit list so as to be appointed. Result of the examination was declared on 9. 9. 2002. ( 8 ) IN this intervening period, petitioners cleared their final year examination conducted by their respective university. The results were declared. Mark sheets/provisional degrees were issued to the petitioners, but unfortunately in the month of August 2002. Be that as it may, petitioners had acquired the requisite qualifications prior to the declaration of result by the, respondent, which as noted was declared on 9. 9. 2002. ( 9 ) AFTER the declaration of the result, petitioners were issued a letter on 23. 9. 2002 requiring them to visit the office of the respondent on 7. 10. 2002 for verification of their original documents. Armed with degrees which they had acquired, petitioner went for scrutiny of their documents but were denied appointment on the ground that scrutiny of the documents submitted in original showed that the petitioners had acquired the degree after 31. 7. 2002. ( 10 ) CASE of the petitioners rests on 3 submissions. 10. 2002 for verification of their original documents. Armed with degrees which they had acquired, petitioner went for scrutiny of their documents but were denied appointment on the ground that scrutiny of the documents submitted in original showed that the petitioners had acquired the degree after 31. 7. 2002. ( 10 ) CASE of the petitioners rests on 3 submissions. Firstly, even in the previous year a similar problem had arisen and the respondents had decided that it would issue appointment letter to all the candidates who had cleared the competitive examination conducted by it provided the degree was obtained prior to the date of scrutiny of their degrees after declaration of the result of the competitive examination. The respondent had not stuck to the cut off date by which the degree had to be acquired in the previous year and, therefore, even for the present year, same principle should be followed by the respondent. Second contention raised was that the respondent had broad based the candidates who could appear in the written test conducted by it, by allowing final year students to take the competitive examination. The written examination was conducted on 9. 6. 2002 and the cut off date 31. 7. 2002 was fixed because by that date the respondent had hoped that their results would be declared and so would the results of the various universities be declared. This assumption i. e. the assumption that the respondent would be able to declare their results by 31. 7. 2002 having not materialized into the realm of reality, evidenced by the fact that the respondents declared their results on 9. 9. 2002, the basis of fixing the cut off date as 31. 7. 2002 vanished and there is no justification to sick to said date. This contention, according to the petitioners would be sound and logical and in conformity with the advertisement issued by the respondent which had broad based the catchment area of recruitment by allowing final year degree students to sit in the competitive examination. Thirdly and lastly, submitted the petitioner, there was no rationale in fixing the cut off date as 31. 7. 2002. The rationale date had to be the date when the respondent would declare its result. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that bsnl has just come into being and the examination conducted by it in the year 2001 was the first. 7. 2002. The rationale date had to be the date when the respondent would declare its result. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that bsnl has just come into being and the examination conducted by it in the year 2001 was the first. There were bound to be teething problems. Therefore, what was decided in the year 2001 would not apply to the year 2002. learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that it was true that cut off date as 31. 7. 2002 was fixed hoping that the result of the competitive examination conducted by the respondent would be announced by that date but did not mean that late declaration of result of the competitive examination by the respondent would automatically shift the eligibility date. Counsel contended that eligibility date always has to be fixed as per the administrated exigencies and one cannot look to any identifiable criteria on which an eligibility date would be fixed. Every department conducts interviews or written examination as per its convenience and since some eligibility date has to be, fixed, fixes the same. ( 11 ) IT is no doubt true that it is for a department to prescribe an eligibility cut off date and it is not for a court to interfere in the same and it is also true that eligibility has to be on or before the cut off date prescribed. This, however, would strictly be applicable where eligibility is prescribed prior to the date of screening the applications to decide as to who should be called for interview or be issued an admit card to take a written examination. This legal position would strictly not apply to a case where a person is permitted to sit in a written examination which is prior to the eligibility date prescribed and consideration for appointment pursuant to screening goes beyond the eligibility date. The reasons for being eligible prior to the date of eligibility are to be found in the judgments of the Supreme court in Hitterndra Kumar Bhatt s case and m. Tripura Sundari Devi s case as also Rekha chaturbedi s case. The basis on which the said reasons are predicated would obviously be found missing in a case at hand. The reasons for being eligible prior to the date of eligibility are to be found in the judgments of the Supreme court in Hitterndra Kumar Bhatt s case and m. Tripura Sundari Devi s case as also Rekha chaturbedi s case. The basis on which the said reasons are predicated would obviously be found missing in a case at hand. The positive side relating to qualifications postponed to a future date as noted by the supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma s case are attracted in the present case. ( 12 ) BY shifting the date of eligibility in the present case, it cannot be said that any third party who could have applied, would have applied if he was aware that shifting would take place. All candidates, who had acquired their graduation degrees and were desirous of being appointed would have applied. Similarly all final year degree students, who were desirous of being appointed would have applied. Admittedly, the respondent fixed the date as 31. 7. 2007 on the assumption that it would be able to declare the result of the examination conducted by it and would, therefore, require eligibility when it would scrutinize the successful candidates. 31. 7. 2002 was, if one may say, the conceived notional date scrutiny. This expectation did not materialize as a reality. Results were declared on 9. 9. 2002. Even in the previous year, a somewhat similar situation had arisen when admittedly the respondent gave employment to all those who were declared successful in the competitive examination and had obtained the degrees by said date. I find no reason as to why same be not done in the present case. After all, by so doing, right of none is taken away and the best available talent is being attracted in service. If this process is not to be followed, petitioners, who are more meritorious would not only be losing the job but the respondent would be inducing persons, who are less meritorious. This would come into conflict with the policy of the respondent to attract the best talent by broad basing the competitive examination by attracting all final year students to take the examination. ( 13 ) WRIT petition is allowed. This would come into conflict with the policy of the respondent to attract the best talent by broad basing the competitive examination by attracting all final year students to take the examination. ( 13 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Mandamus is issued to the respondents to process the case of the petitioners for appointment by scrutinizing their professional degrees/ marksheets provided the same were offered for scrutiny by the date prescribed in the letter issued to the petitioners to report to the respondent with their original documents together with attested copies for scrutiny. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.