JUDGMENT : P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. CM-10596-CWP-2018 In the present application, review applicant has sought for condonation of delay of 398 days in presenting review application. Reason assigned by the review applicant is that he had preferred LPA and it was withdrawn stating that applicant would approach learned Single Judge by making an appropriate application. Having regard to the reasons assigned for condonation of delay that he had filed LPA, delay of 398 days in presenting review application is condoned. Accordingly, CM stands allowed. RA-CW-204-2018 1. In the present review application, review applicant has prayed for review and modification of the impugned judgment dated 23.05.2017 passed in CWP No. 19103 of 2012. 2. Learned counsel for the review applicant submitted that in para 8 of the judgment dated 23.05.2017, there is error in not considering the factual aspect to the extent that review applicant had published two more papers on 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 which was prior to 03.10.2011, which was the last date for submission of the application for the post of Assistant Professor (History). It was further submitted that even though papers published on 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 and was within the knowledge of the review applicant as on 03.10.2011, for bona fide reason he could not produce and it was produced before the selecting authority on 12.01.2012 and it has been appreciated and accepted by the selecting authority while selecting the review applicant for the post of Assistant Professor (History). Therefore, review applicant did possess paper publications as one of the requirement for awarding marks. It was also contended that University – respondent have entertained publication of papers, those who have not submitted as on 03.10.2011 and accepted on par with the review applicant. Therefore, it was submitted that as on the last date, namely, 03.10.2011, review applicant had published papers on 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 for which he is entitled for additional marks. To that extent, there is an error and order dated 23.05.2017 is to be recalled. In support of review applicant's contention to that extent that if a candidate is eligible as on the last date with reference to a particular qualification and document, in that event, candidate's selection is required to be taken into consideration with reference to non-furnishing of documents as on the last date fixed. In support of review applicant's contention to that extent that if a candidate is eligible as on the last date with reference to a particular qualification and document, in that event, candidate's selection is required to be taken into consideration with reference to non-furnishing of documents as on the last date fixed. He relied on Supreme Court decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another vs. Chander Shekher and another, reported in 1993 Supplementary (2) SCC 611 (Para No.15). 3. Heard the learned counsel for review applicant. 4. Scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is limited to the extent of what is the error apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for review applicant has not specifically pointed out that what is the error committed in para no.8 of the judgment dated 23.05.2017. In other words, he is re-arguing the matter with fresh material like he had published papers on 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 even though it was not produced along with application prior to 03.10.2011 and it was produced before the selecting authority by means of representation on 12.01.2012. Thus, new material cannot be entertained. Assuming that new material like publication of papers on 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 is taken into consideration, even then review applicant failed to furnish the aforesaid papers dated 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 as on 03.10.2011 the date on which last date for submission of application was fixed in the advertisement read with candidatures' instructions. The cited decision is a distinguishable in view of later decisions of Supreme Court, namely, Om Sai Punya Educational and Social Welfare Society & another Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and another, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 363, wherein it is held that adherence to time schedule, held mandatory and not directory and also held dates and timelines are provided in regulations are inviolable. It is to be noted that review applicant is a candidate for the post of Assistant Professor (History) who is double graduate when he had the knowledge of publication of papers on 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 and it should have been enclosed along with application for the post as per the instructions to the candidates dated 15.09.2011 (vide Annexures P/1 and P/2). It is to be noted that one of the paper was published on 15.09.2011 i.e., on the date of advertisement and the other was on 30.09.2011. It is to be noted that one of the paper was published on 15.09.2011 i.e., on the date of advertisement and the other was on 30.09.2011. Both are prior to last date for submission of application. Instructions are specific “before applying applicants must ensure their eligibility on the University website http//www.kuk.ac.in ” and “For general instructions, qualifications and other details, please visit our website www.kuk.ac.in ”. Further, Important instructions for Advertisement No. 4/2011 are that “5. The eligibility of every candidate will be determined on the basis of qualifications acquired and communicated to the office by him/her up to the last date fixed for receipt of applications i.e. upto 03.10.2011. 10. Application not supported with required application fee, attested copies of certificates/testimonials/re-prints of Research Publications, title pages and contents pages of each Journal in which the publication under reference were published and the applications received after the expiry of last date will be liable to be rejected.” The aforesaid instructions have been violated by the review applicant as is evident from the record to the extent that review applicant has produced only two papers as on 03.10.2011 and not the papers published on 15.09.2011 and 30.09.2011. Such error committed by the review applicant cannot be condoned in view of clear instructions to the candidates. The cited decision Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) could be distinguishable in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan and others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545 , para 48 reads as under:- “48. Several decisions have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the State governing that field. Reservation provisions are enabling provisions, and different State Governments can have different methods of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the matter of application alone. In our opinion the communal rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block.” In other words, instructions issued to the candidates vide advertisement dated 15.09.2011 read with instructions dated 15.09.2011 (Annexures P/1 and P/2) are relevant. Moreover, University-selecting authority before entertaining fresh materials on 12.01.2012, it has not extended the last date from 03.10.2011 to 12.01.2012 by modifying advertisement and instructions to candidates. Moreover, University-selecting authority before entertaining fresh materials on 12.01.2012, it has not extended the last date from 03.10.2011 to 12.01.2012 by modifying advertisement and instructions to candidates. Therefore, advertisement and instructions cannot be tinkered or side-tracked in entertaining fresh materials beyond 03.10.2011. Hence, decision Ashok Kumar (supra) is not applicable to the present case and it is hereby distinguished. 5. In view of these facts and circumstances, review applicant has not made out a case so as to review the order dated 23.05.2017. Accordingly, review application stands dismissed.