JUDGMENT Ms. K. SUGUNA, J. This writ appeal is filed as against the order dated 16.8.2007, passed in W.P. (MD) No. 5538 of 2007. 2. The above said writ petition was filed by the appellant herein seeking a direction to the respondents to issue Eligibility Certificate and allow her to continue her B.Ed., Course in the fourth respondent College and to permit her to attend the University Examinations. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has not possessed the required qualification prescribed by the concerned University. As against the same, this writ appeal is filed. 3. The relevant regulation applicable to the B.Ed., Course issued for the concerned year by the Government is G.O. Ms. No. 185, Higher Education Department, dated 13.6.2005. As per Clause (iv) (a), wherein the educational qualification is dealt with, the minimum required qualification for admission is that a candidate should have secured 45% of marks in U.G. Degree and in P.G. Degree, a minimum pass is required. The concerned Clause reads as follows: “Candidates should have secured 45% of marks in U.G.degree and P.G.degree a minimum pass is required for admission.” The minimum requirement for admission to the B.Ed., Course is U.G. Degree with 45% of marks. Because of use of the word, “and”, the appellant’s claim has been rejected, though she is qualified with a Master Degree with 53.81% of marks. 4. As far as the appellant is concerned, she had secured 42% of marks in B.A. Degree and 53.81% of marks in M.A. Degree. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, though the word used in the said clauae, subsequent to the term U.G. degree, “and”, that has to be read as “or”. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Guru Praaanna Singh, at page No. 435, wherein it is stated as follows: “The word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive and ‘and’ is normally conjunctive but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed from the context. As stated by SCRUTTON, L.J.: “You do sometimes read ‘or’ as ‘and’ in a statute. But you do not do it unless you are obliged because “or” does not generally mean ‘and’ and ‘and’ does not generally mean ‘or’.” 5. As stated by SCRUTTON, L.J.: “You do sometimes read ‘or’ as ‘and’ in a statute. But you do not do it unless you are obliged because “or” does not generally mean ‘and’ and ‘and’ does not generally mean ‘or’.” 5. In addition to this, the learned counsel has also relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2009) 1 SCC 610, wherein at paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, it has been held as follows: “6. The academic qualification prescribed for admission to the three years’ LLB professional course (vide Handbook of Information) is as follows:“Candidates who have passed Bachelor’s degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or any other equivalent examination recognised as such by the University with not less than 45% marks; or Master’s degree of Guru Nanak Dev University or of any other university recognised as equivalent thereto.” 7. The appellant University submitted that a Bachelor’s degree is a must for admission, and the Master’s degree of the appellant University (or the equivalent) was considered as an eligible qualification for admission, only where the candidate had not secured 45% marks in the Bachelor’s degree course. 8. This argument of the appellant University is contested by the first respondent, who appeared in person. According to him, the provision relating to eligibility used the word “or” between the two qualifications prescribed; and that indicated that they were alternatives and possessing either of them would make a candidate eligible. He submitted that as he possessed MA(English) degree from Annamalai University through distance education under the open university system (OUS), he fulfilled the alternative requirement prescribed, that is, a Master’s degree recognised as equivalent to the Master’s degree of the appellant University and therefore, he is eligible to get admission to the three years’ LLB professional course. 9. The prescription of eligibility criteria is very clear”. It requires a Bachelor’s degree with not less than 45% marks or a Master’s degree. The University’s contention that the candidate must have a Bachelor’s degree and only if his marks are less than 45% in the Bachelor’s degree course, was the Master’s degree to be considered, would mean that the word “or” should be substituted by the words “in the event of the candidate not having 45% marks in the Bachelor’s degree”. Reading such words into the provision is impermissible. The word “or” is disjunctive. Reading such words into the provision is impermissible. The word “or” is disjunctive. No doubt, in some exceptional circumstances, the word “or” has been read as conjunctive as meaning “and”, where the context warranted it. But the word “or” cannot obviously be read as referring to a conditional alternative, when such condition is not specified. In view of the provision relating to eligibility being unambiguous and using the word “or”, it is clear that a Master’s degree without a Bachelor’s degree will satisfy the eligibility requirement.” 6. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the word “and” should have been used not as ‘conjunctive’, but as ‘disjunctive’, i.e., though the word used therein is “and”, it has to be read as “or”. Under such circumstances, in addition to the Bachelor Degree, if a candidate is qualified with minimum pass with P.G. Degree, he/she will get the eligibility for admission to the B.Ed., Course. But, basing on wrong interpretation given to the above said clause, according to the learned counsel, the appellant was not permitted to sit for the examinations. However, basing on the interim orders granted by this Court, she had attended the examinations and completed the course, but, her results have been withheld. 7. Yet another stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had not suppressed any fact and having fully known the marks secured by her, she was admitted in the fourth respondent College. Now, according to the learned counsel, the respondents are estopped from denying the benefit of writing the examinations and according to the learned counsel, if the Clause (iv) (a) is read as with the words given therein, that itself will not give any meaning and if there is any ambiguity in any clause of any Government Order, that has to be read in such a way to give meaning to the term therein. Basing on this, the learned counsel for the appellant has sought for allowing of the writ appeal. 8. The learned. Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent University relying on the Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 214, Higher Education (G-1) Department, dated 4.7.2007, has submitted that as far as P.G. Degree is concerned, it has to be taken into account for giving a weightage. 8. The learned. Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent University relying on the Government Order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 214, Higher Education (G-1) Department, dated 4.7.2007, has submitted that as far as P.G. Degree is concerned, it has to be taken into account for giving a weightage. With this intention alone, ihe term “and” has been used in Clause (iv)(a) of Clause I of annexure to G.O. Ms. No. 185, Higher Education Department, dated 13.6.2005. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel, when the candidates with 45% of marks in Bachelor Degree are available, the candidates, who are not qualified with the required qualification prescribed by the concerned University, need not be admitted in the course. Basing on this, the learned Special Government Pleader has sought for dismissal of the above said writ appeal. 9. We have considered the above submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 10. The issue to be decided is how to interpret the Clause (iv) (a) of Clause I of annexure to G.O. Ms. No. 185, Higher Education Department, dated 13.6.2005. 11. Admittedly, the minimum required qualification for admission to the B.Ed., Course is U.G. Degree with 45% of marks. When the minimum required qualification is U.G., Degree with 45% of marks, there is no need or necessity to say that further “and P.G. Degree a minimum pass is required qualification for admission”. If the required qualification is U.G. Degree with 45% of marks and a minimum pass in P.G. Degree, this can be accepted. But, when the minimum requirement qualification is only U.G. Degree with 45% of marks, mentioning of P.G. Degree with minimum pass does not arise. However, as held in the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Guru Prasanna Singh, though the word “and” is used as ‘conjunctive’, it has to be read as ‘disjunctive’ and has to be read as “or”. That is to say, to get the eligibility for admission to B.Ed., course, a candidate must be qualified with U.G. Degree with 45% of marks or with P.G. Degree with minimum pass. If Clause (iv)(a) is read, as it is given, a reading of the same will not convey any meaning also. Consequently, the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be accepted. 12. If Clause (iv)(a) is read, as it is given, a reading of the same will not convey any meaning also. Consequently, the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be accepted. 12. Under such circumstances, as far as the appellant is concerned, she is qualified with B.A., and M.A., and as far as U.G., Degree is concerned, she had secured 42% of marks and as far as Master degree is concerned, she had secured 53.81% of marks. By reading “and” in sub-clause (a) of Clause (iv) of Clause I as “or”, if a candidate is qualified with U.G., Degree and P.G. Degree with minimum pass, he/she will get the eligibility. Since the appellant is qualified with 53.81% of marks in P.G., Degree, though secured only 42% af marks in U.G., Degree, as per Clause (iv) (a) of Rule (I) of Annexure to G.O. Ms. No. 185, Higher Education Department, dated 13.6.2005, she is deemed to possess the required qualification. In addition to this, she had also completed the B.Ed., course and she had also written the examinations. But, her results were not published basing on the pendency of the writ appeal. 13. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that in sub-clause (a) of Clause (iv) of Clause (1) of annexure to G.O. Ms. No. 185, Higher Education Department, dated 13.6.2005, “and” has to be read as “or”, consequently, the appellant is possessed the required qualification. Hence, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.8.2007 made in W.P. (MD) No. 5538 of 2007 and the respondents are directed to publish the results of the appellant, which she had written in the year 2007. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Appeal allowed.