JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The petitioner avers that he joined as Fireman under the respondent-Board on 9.1.1992, as a direct recruit. He further avers that he has passed Shashtri in 1987 from Himachal Pradesh University and also obtained degree of Acharya from the said University in 1989. He relies upon Annexure P-1 to aver that the promotional avenue available to a Fireman, is as a Leading Fireman. In the writ petition, he relies upon Annexure P-1, which are the R& P Rules prescribing the eligibility criteria for promotion of a Fireman to the post of Leading Fireman. The eligibility criteria existing in Annexure P-1, is, in a tabulated form and is extracted hereinafter:- Sr. No. Qualification Experience (i) Qualified in Sub Fire Officer Course from National Fire Service College Nagpur or equivalent degree with heavy vehicle driving licence Or 5 years experience in Fire service. (ii) Qualified in Fire Course arranged by Ministry of Defence of Home Affairs with heavy vehicle driving licence Or 7 years experience in Fire Service. (iii) Departmental candidates without any courses who show appreciable and obtain good reports with heavy vehicle licence. 10 years experience in fire service. 2. The eligibility criteria for promotion of a Fireman to the post of Leading Fireman, do not enjoin the eligible aspirants/candidates to hold/possess any degree reflecting their having completed any course, rather, they are enjoined to possess certificates of ‘appreciable initiative’, besides hold good reports with heavy vehicle driving licence. The petitioner avers that he was awarded appreciation letter by the respondent No. 2, comprised in Annexure P-2, for his act of bravery, in as much as, putting his life to exemplary danger while extinguishing a fire, which broke out in BBMB Switchyard Slapper, on 4.6.2007. The petitioner made a representation comprised in Annexure P-3 to the respondents for considering him to the post of Leading Fireman. Even a legal notice comprised in Annexure P-4 was issued by the petitioner upon the respondents, depicting the fact that, he, alone was possessing the germane eligibility criteria, as, prescribed in the R & P Rules, extracted herein above. In as much, as, he alone possessed/held certificate of ‘appreciable initiative’, which the others did not possess, hence, he alone was entitled to be considered for promotion from the post of Fireman, to that of Leading Fireman. He holds a Heavy Duty Licence. In as much, as, he alone possessed/held certificate of ‘appreciable initiative’, which the others did not possess, hence, he alone was entitled to be considered for promotion from the post of Fireman, to that of Leading Fireman. He holds a Heavy Duty Licence. He avers that his fundamental right, to be considered, for promotion to the post of Leading Fireman from the post of Fireman, has been infringed, even, when he alone possessed the necessary and germane criteria, as, stipulated in the R & P Rules. The respondents in, having not considered him for promotion, rather as is evident from Annexure P-5, which is the information elicited from the respondents, under Right to Information Act, wherein, it has been conveyed to the petitioner ‘it is for your information as per record available, in all promotions of fireman to leading fireman no weightage was given to any employee for appreciation letters/certificates’, hence, have acted arbitrarily and in palpable violation of the apposite rules causing prejudice to his career. In substratum, it is reiteratedly averred, that the omission on the part of respondents to consider him for promotion and to proceed to consider for promotion such Firemen who are senior to the petitioner yet not possessing appreciation letters/certificate, as also, omission on the part of the Committee, which considered the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Leading Fireman, to, accord weightage to an employee possessing appreciation letter/certificate, has constituted infringement of the mandate of R & P Rules extracted here-inabove. Consequently, the fundamental right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion with his fulfilling the relevant criteria at the apposite time has been put in serious jeopardy. The petitioner omitted to array the Firemen, who were given promotion to the post of Leading Fireman, hence, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents, that the writ petition, is, bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadment of all the Firemen, who had been promoted to the post of Leading Fireman under the order rendered by the respondents, on 9.2.2012. However, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadment of all the Firemen, who had been promoted to the post of Leading Fireman under the order rendered by the respondents, on 9.2.2012. When the application came up for consideration before this Court, this Court vide order rendered on 11.6.2012 in CMP No. 6182 of 2012, allowed the application for impleadment of all the Fireman reflected in the application, who had been promoted to the post of Leading Fireman and a further direction was rendered, that, an amended memo of parties, as already filed, be taken on record. Representation on behalf of the newly impleaded respondents was put in by learned counsel. Reply on behalf of newly impleaded respondents was also filed. They, too, have furnished a reply para materia to, as, also during the course of hearing of the writ petition the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 10 adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. In the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2, as also, has been specifically argued during the course of the hearing of the matter, that the promotion from the post of Fireman to that of Leading Fireman, is, done strictly on seniority-cum-merit basis and not on merit-cum-seniority basis. Besides, it is contended and urged that the appreciation letter Annexure P-2, held and possessed by the petitioner, is, not controvertable. However, its possession by the petitioner does not ipso facto confer upon him any right to claim promotion from the post of Firemen, to that of Leading Fireman. It is also contended that other senior Fireman also possess such appreciation letters, in, the field of fire fighting and rescue operations from the competent authority concerned. Moreover, the petitioner being placed at Sr. No. 22, in, the seniority list of Fireman, hence, much below the other senior meritorious Firemen. Consequently, he being much junior, hence, there was no infringement of his right, to be considered for promotion, to the exclusion of the other senior meritorious Firemen. Consequently, the act of the respondents in promoting respondents No. 3 to 10 under orders rendered on 9.2.2012, has been sought to be validated. Consequently, he being much junior, hence, there was no infringement of his right, to be considered for promotion, to the exclusion of the other senior meritorious Firemen. Consequently, the act of the respondents in promoting respondents No. 3 to 10 under orders rendered on 9.2.2012, has been sought to be validated. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply of the respondents, wherein a concentrated focus and emphasis was laid upon the fact of omission, on the part of the respondents to place on record, the details of such fireman senior to the petitioner, who possess/hold appreciation letters/certificates, in, fulfillment of eligibility criteria comprised in the relevant R&P Rules relating to promotion from the Post of Fireman, to that of Leading Fireman, so as, to render them to be at par with the petitioner, hence, negating the claim of the petitioner that he alone fulfilled the eligibility criteria, in as much as, he alone possessed/held appreciation letters/certificates. The respondents No. 1 and 2 discarded the criteria, of, firemen possessing ‘appreciable initiative’ for rendering them eligible for promotion to the post of Leading Fireman, rather construed ‘appreciable initiative’, as, elucidated in the R&P Rules, to be constituted, by earning of good ratings by them in the ACRs for the preceding five years, as evident from page No. 58 and, then, consequently proceeded to promote respondents No. 3 to 10, from, the post of Fireman to that of Leading Fireman. Hence, the petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit, has prayed for, setting aside the promotion given by the respondent-Board to respondents No. 3 to 10, vide Annexure A-2 rendered on 9.2.2012 during the pendency of the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel on either side have been heard at length. In nutshell, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends before this Court that the prescription, in R&P Rules for promotion, from the post of Fireman to that of Leading Fireman, qua departmental candidates, is, of such candidates, even though, not possessing any course from any institution organizing courses for improvising efficiency in fire fighting qua staff deployed with BBMB, which fact of none of the aspirants qualifying such a course, is, evident from Annexure P-5, yet each of the aspirants necessarily enjoined to show ‘appreciable initiative’, as well, as obtain good reports with heavy vehicle driving licence. Therefore, the sine qua non of the requisite criteria to be fulfilled by each of the aspirants for promotion from the post of Fireman to the post of Leading Fireman, are: (1) Appreciable initiative comprised in their possessing appreciation letters/certificates. AND (2) And theirs also possess good reports with heavy vehicle driving licence. 4. All the above indispensable requirements have been accomplished and fulfilled by the petitioner, in as much as, he alone possesses Annexure P-2, in fulfillment of the enshrined criteria of ‘appreciable initiative’ displayed by his holding appreciation letter/certificate for showing exemplary courage and bravery, in extinguishing the fire which broke out in BBMB Switchyard, Slapper. The said fact is amply and abundantly pronounced. Even the counsel for the respondent does not contest the said fact. Learned counsel for the respondents, also, does not either wrangle or contest the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that, any of the respondents No. 3 to 10, did not, at the relevant time, either possess or hold appreciation certificates/letters in recognition of their exemplary fire fighting capacity or pronouncing their consummate fire fighting skills. It is evident from Annexure A-2, existing at page 59 of the paper book, rendered, in, pursuance to the minutes of the meeting of promotion committee, held, on, 12.1.1012, that the Committee which convened on 12.1.2012, to, consider the case of promotion, of, fireman to the post of Leading Fireman, had proceeded to fathom and gauge, the enunciated relevant R & P Rules, applicable, for, promotion from the post of Fireman to the Leading Fireman, to be theirs communicating the fact of each of the aspirants earning good report in the ACRs, of the preceding five years. The agitatable issue inter-se the parties at contest before this Court, is whether ‘appreciable initiative’, one of the germane ingredients, of the criteria, prescribed in the R & P Rules, relating, to, promotion from the post of Fireman, to, the post of Leading Fireman, is constituted by each of the aspirants alongwith other criteria possessing a letter of appreciation/certificate or is constituted or computable as construed by the Promotion Committee, which convened on 12.01.2012, on, the strength or anvil of, each earning good ratings, in, their ACRs, in the preceding five years. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended, that the aforesaid construction placed upon the phrase ‘appreciable initiative’ comprising an ingredient of the eligibility criteria, in, the relevant R&P Rules, by the Committee, which rendered order Annexure A-2, is, untenable and in flagrant violation of R&P Rules, which, are extracted hereinafter:- Sr. No. Qualification Experience (i) Qualified in Sub Fire Officer Course from National Fire Service College Nagpur or equivalent degree with heavy vehicle driving licence Or 5 years experience in Fire service. (ii) Qualified in Fire Course arranged by Ministry of Defence of Home Affairs with heavy vehicle driving licence 7 years experience in Fire Service. Or (iii) Departmental candidates without any courses who show appreciable and obtain good reports with heavy vehicle licence. 10 years experience in fire service. 6. In as much as, when it is mandatory for each of the candidates, to possess ‘appreciable initiative’ comprised in each of them holding appreciation letters/certificates, in, recognition of theirs exemplary bravery and fortitude, besides, possessing good ratings, in, the ACRs along with heavy driving licence. Their cumulative and conjoined holding, by each of the aspirants of each ingredients of the criteria, was imperative. Each of the qualifications was solitarily possessed/held by the petitioner. In the event of others not possessing or holding such ‘appreciable initiative’ portrayed by theirs not being awarded letters of appreciation/certificates, rendered them not to be qualified. Hence, theirs being considered for promotion by the departmental promotion committee, and theirs having come to be ultimately promoted occasioned a breach of the R&P Rules, extracted hereinabove. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in Phool Patti and another versus Ram Singh (dead) through LRs and another, (2009) 13 SCC 23, the relevant para 9 of which is extracted hereinafter:- “9. It is well-settled principle of interpretation that the Court cannot add words to the statue or change its language, particularly when on a plain reading the meaning seems to be clear. Since there is no mention of any preexisting right in the exception in clause (vi), we have found it difficult to accept the views in Bhoop Singh case. It is well-settled principle of interpretation that the Court cannot add words to the statue or change its language, particularly when on a plain reading the meaning seems to be clear. Since there is no mention of any preexisting right in the exception in clause (vi), we have found it difficult to accept the views in Bhoop Singh case. It seems that there is inconsistency in the decision of this Court in Bhoop Sing case and K. Raghunandan case, and since we are finding it difficult to agree with the decision of this Court in B hoop Singh case, the matter should be considered by a larger Bench of this Court.” 7. To sway this Court, to literally construe the phraseology ‘appreciable initiative’, existing in the relevant R&P Rules being conjoined with the succeeding words ‘earn good reports’ by conjunctive ‘and’, hence its plain reading conveying the imperativeness of its possession or holding by each of the aspirants, each of the sine qua non, for theirs being considered for promotion from the post of Fireman to that of leading Fireman. To lend any construction to it other than the one abundantly and unambiguously conveyed by the relevant R & P Rules, would result, in, this Court proceeding to add, alter or amend the relevant R & P Rules, which would be legally impermissible. Besides it has canvassed that when the meaning of rules, is, on its plain reading is clear, in as much, as, it conveys that each of the ingredients enshrined in the rules, has, to be independently possessed/held or fulfilled by each of the candidates, which eligibility in its entirety was held by the petitioner alone, hence, rendered him, alone to be considered for promotion from the post of Fireman to that of the Leading Fireman. As a corollary it rendered the others to be unfit for either being considered for promotion or hence being promoted. 8. He also relies upon a judgement reported in V.L.S.Finance Limited vs. Union of India and others (2013) 6 SCC 278 to fortify the submissions aforesaid. “18. As is well settled, while interpreting the provisions of a statute, the Court avoids rejection or addition of words and resorts to that only in exceptional circumstances to achieve the purpose of the Act or give purposeful meaning. “18. As is well settled, while interpreting the provisions of a statute, the Court avoids rejection or addition of words and resorts to that only in exceptional circumstances to achieve the purpose of the Act or give purposeful meaning. It is also a cardinal rule of interpretation that words, phrases and sentences are to be given their natural, plain and clear meaning. When the language is clear and unambiguous, it must be interpreted in an ordinary sense and no addition or alteration of the words or expressions used is permissible. As observed earlier, the aforesaid enactment was brought in view of the need of leniency in the administration of the Act because a large number of defaults are of technical nature and many defaults occurred because of the complex nature of the provision”. 9. Lastly, learned counsel relied upon a judgement reported in Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma and others vs. State of Bihar and others 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 192. Relevant portion whereof existing in paragraph 3, 4 and 5 is extracted hereinafter. 3. The controversy lies in a short compass. Admittedly, the appellant is not possessed of the qualification prescribed for super- specialty, namely M.Ch. Admittedly, both the appellant and respondent No. 7 had the qualification as M.S- General, Surgery. In addition, 7th respondent had the qualification of M. Ch in the specialty concerned, namely Neurosurgery, acquired in 1989. The question, therefore, is whether the direction issued by the High Court to consider the case in the light of the abovesaid judgment, is correct in law. The Medical Council of India has framed the regulations under Section 33 (j) the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Clause (a) is for the Professor/Associate Professor which reads as under:- Post Academic Qualification Tea ching/R easearch Experience (a) Professor M.Ch in Specialty (a) As Reader, Asstt. Prof. in Associate concerned after respective subjects for 5 Professor M. S/F.R. C. S. years in a medical college after requisite postgraduate qualification. M.S/F.R.C.S or an equivalent qualification in Surgery with two years’ special training in the specialty concerned or specialty Board (USA) in the specialty concerned. (b) Reader/ -do- (b) As Registrar of an Asstt. Equivalent post for at least 3 Professor years in respective subjects or allied subjects in a teaching institution. 4. Shri M.L Verma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, states M. Ch. (b) Reader/ -do- (b) As Registrar of an Asstt. Equivalent post for at least 3 Professor years in respective subjects or allied subjects in a teaching institution. 4. Shri M.L Verma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, states M. Ch. In the specialty concerned after M.S/F.R.C.S or M.S or F.R.C.S or a qualification equivalent in Surgery with two years’ special training in the specialty concerned or Specialty Board (USA) in the specialty concerned would be to mean that the requirement of acquiring the qualification of M. Ch, is not a condition precedent for promotion to the post of Associate Professor from the post of Assistant Professor. Since the appellant had put in more than 15 years’ experience as an Assistant Professor and also in the specialty concerned in i.e. Neurosurgery, he is entitled to be considered and the High Court was not right in directing to consider the case in the light of the judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal Case, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 287. He strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Govt. of A.P v. Dr. R. Murali Babu Rao, 2 (1988) 2 SCC 386 . 5. Where the language of the Act is clear and explicit, the Court must give effect to it, whatever may be consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature. The interjection of the preposition ‘or’ at the underlined place amounts to judicial legislation or supplying omission which is impermissible in the process of construction of the Regulations. So we cannot read the Regulation in the manner suggested by the counsel. M. CH is a super-specialty. The Associate Professor is to teach the students in that subject or guide the research student. So the Regulation intended to prescribe M. Ch. after M. S is a must. It is clear from what we read ‘after’ M.S. or F.R.C.S. In Dr. Murali Babu Rao case, admittedly Dr. G. Subramanyuam, Dr. A. Rajagopala Raju and Dr. Soghra Begum who already had M.D (cardiology) and put in required experience as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical and Health Services Special Rules, 1982 were senior to Dr. Murali Babu Rao who had then the M.D. (cardiology) but without five years’ experience in the super-specialty namely, D.M (cardiology). The question was whether 5 years’ experience in D.M. is a must. Murali Babu Rao who had then the M.D. (cardiology) but without five years’ experience in the super-specialty namely, D.M (cardiology). The question was whether 5 years’ experience in D.M. is a must. While interpreting Rule 5, this court held that acquisition of experience of five years after D.M. is a condition precedent and since Dr. Murali Babu Rao had not had five years’ experience, after acquiring D.M. (cardiology), he did not become senior to the aforestated Dr. Subraman yam and others. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in directing to consider their case ignoring the claims of Dr. Murali Babu Rao and others. That ratio far from helping the appellant is consistent with the Regulation framed by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 that degree in specialty is a must. No doubt, this Court had held therein that the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are only directory and would give place to the statutory rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by the Governor. The regulations made by the Medical Council of India do not have any overriding effect on the statutory rules. Rule 5 prescribed 5 years’ teaching experience after D.M. which was upheld. In this case, admittedly, no statutory rules have been made by the State of Bihar. Therefore, the regulations made by the Medical Council of India under Section 33 would bind the State Government. The conditions prescribed therein namely, for promotion to the post of Professor or Associate Professor, the qualification in the specialty namely M. Ch. Concerned after M.S/F.R.C.S is a must. Since the appellant did not have the qualification of M. Ch though he had the experience, he is not entitled to be considered for promotion as Associate Professor in suppression of the claim of the 7th respondent and other similarly situated persons. In Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal Case, this Court considered the controversy and held that the acquisition of the qualification of M.Ch in Neurosurgery is a must and that omission to consider the case of Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal though had M. Ch. Was not considered. It was held to be illegal and directed to consider his case. In Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal Case, this Court considered the controversy and held that the acquisition of the qualification of M.Ch in Neurosurgery is a must and that omission to consider the case of Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal though had M. Ch. Was not considered. It was held to be illegal and directed to consider his case. Though the post concerned therein was of Assistant Professor, since the same qualification has been prescribed for the post of Professor/Associate Professor also, the ratio therein would equally be applicable to the claim of the persons eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Professor/Associate Professor. Under these circumstances, we hold that the appellant since did not have specialty in M. Ch. (Neurosurgery), there is no illegality in the directions given by the High Court, warranting our interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 10. The learned counsel has relied upon a text nomenclatured as Principles of Statutory Interpretation authored by Justice G.P.Singh, wherein, at, pages 485 and 488, it, has been enunciated that the word ‘or’ is normally disjunctive, yet, it is the manifest intention of the Legislature as disclosed in the context which prevails. The reading of the word ‘or’ as ‘and’ has been emphatically stated by the author of aforesaid text to be resorted, to, only when on a literal reading of the words, they produce an absurd result, rather it has been emphasized that where a provision is clear the word ‘or’ cannot be read as ‘and’ by applying the principle of reading down. Mr. Justice G.P Singh in his text nomenclatured interpretation of statute has at page 485, enunciated that 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. At times ‘or’ is read as ‘and’ and vice versa. However, it is not unless you are obliged because ‘or’ does not mean ‘and’ and ‘and’ does not generally mean ‘or’. But if the literal reading of a word produces an un-intelligible or absurd result ‘and’ may be read for ‘or’ and ‘or’ for ‘and’ unless the intention of legislature, is, otherwise quite clear. However, it is not unless you are obliged because ‘or’ does not mean ‘and’ and ‘and’ does not generally mean ‘or’. But if the literal reading of a word produces an un-intelligible or absurd result ‘and’ may be read for ‘or’ and ‘or’ for ‘and’ unless the intention of legislature, is, otherwise quite clear. Conversely if reading of ‘and’ as ‘or’ produces grammatical distortions and makes no sense of the portion following ‘and’, ‘or’ cannot be read in place of ‘and’. 11. It is evident from Annexure P-2 that the petitioner alone possessed a certificate/letter in appreciation of his exemplary courage and bravery in extinguishing the fire which broke out in BBMB Switchyard, Slapper. It is not disputed that other Firemen who were accorded the benefit of promotion by the respondents to the post of Leading Fireman, did, not hold or possess such appreciation letter/certificate. The respondents have proceeded, to, consider them for promotion only, on the strength of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which convened, on, 12.1.2012, having construed the eligibility criteria, necessitating as well, as entailing the aspirants, to, possess ‘appreciable initiative’, to be rather fulfilled or comprised by theirs earning good ratings in the ACRs, for the preceding five years. This Court, is, of the considered view, that the Departmental Promotion Committee, which construed the implication, import and meaning of the above ingredients, in, the eligibility criteria prescribed in the relevant R & P Rules, for, promotion from the post of Fireman to that of the Leading Fireman, has altered, amended as well as unwarrantably, whittled down the effect of the unambiguous communication, of the elements/ingredients comprised, in, eligibility criteria, to be, possessed by each of the aspirants to the post of Leading Fireman from that of Fireman, the reasons whereof are:- In view of the plain unambiguous communication, by on a plain reading, of the eligibility criteria and its emphatically pronouncing, on its literal construction, the fact of possession by each of aspirant, of, ‘appreciable initiative’ along with theirs obtaining/earning good reports, besides possessing heavy driving licence, even whey they do not hold any course portraying their proficiency in fire fighting, as a sine qua non conditions which have, to be simultaneously possessed by each of the candidates. None of the elements/ingredients of the eligible criteria, is, to be disjoined nor any of the aspirants are, to, lack in ‘appreciable initiative’ as evinced by their possessing appreciation letters/certificates, conveying their fire fighting skills and exemplary courage and bravery, in, fire fighting. Moreover, the words show ‘appreciable initiative’ though succeeded, by word obtain good reports, are, also halted by word ‘and’ and not by ‘or’. It conveys that hence, the legal necessity as enshrined in the rules, is of both the conditions of ‘appreciable initiative’ when succeeded by the word ‘obtain good reports’ being jointly and simultaneously fulfilled/possessed by each of the aspirants . In case one of the ingredients, of, the eligibility criteria remained unfulfilled, in as much, as, any of the candidates obtained or earned good report, in, the ACRs for the preceding five years and did not show ‘appreciable initiative’ comprised, in, each possessing holding certificates/letters, in, appreciation/exemplary courage and bravery, in, extinguishing the fire, then the eligibility criteria remained unfulfilled or unsatisfied, by, such candidates who did not possess such letters, as well, as, not earned good ratings in their ACRs. 12. On a plain and literal reading of the rules, no, conclusion other than the one formed above, is, possible nor also it is open to the counsel for the respondents, to, contend that the word ‘and’ appearing between show ‘appreciable initiative’ and obtain good reports, can, be diluted or whittled down and can be read as ‘or’. In vindicating such a submission this Court would consequently whittle down, amend or alter the plain and unambiguous meaning, of, unabundantly and clearly pronounced element of an indispensable criteria. Besides, the reading of ‘and’ as ‘or’ as existing between ‘appreciable initiative’ and ‘good reports’ would be unwarranted and would, convey, that each of such elements of the eligibility criteria, has, to be alternatively fulfilled, would generate or produce a grammatical distortion and erode the effect of the rule of literal construction, on application whereof, a, clear and pronounced communication/ensues. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Dr. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Dr. Ganga Prasad Verma and others (Supra), the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinafter while being faced with a para materia situation, in as much, as, the twin conditions prescribed for promotion, in, the relevant rules being combindly or alternatively possessed, had, while interpreting the prescription for qualification to the post of Professor/Assistant Professor framed under Section 33(j) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 comprised in clause clause (a) which, is, extracted hereinafter. Post Academic Qualification Tea ching/R easearch Experience (a) Professor M.Ch in Speciality (a) As Reader, Asstt. Prof in Associate concerned after respective subjects for 5 Professor M. S/F.R. C. S. years in a medical college after requisite postgraduate qualification. M.S/F.R.C.S or an equivalent qualification in Surgery with two years’ special training in the specialty concerned or specialty Board (USA) in the specialty concerned. 14. Had, even when the counsel for the aspirants who did possess M.Ch after MS FRCS, had, contended before the Hon’ble Apex Court, that even in the face of, its, being not possessed by the party represented by the counsel, its non possession in the face of his length of experience in the post of Assistant Professor, rendered, him fit for the post of Professor/Assistant Professor, came to be discountenanced the said contention, by holding, that, it was a condition precedent or its possession, is, mandatory. 15. Similarly, in the instant case the word ‘and’ does not sever or segregate the preceding portion of the eligibility criteria, from the succeeding portion, rather conjoins both ingredients/portions of the eligibility criteria. Hence, its connoting conjunctiveness, as such, entails upon the aspirants, for promotion from the post of Fireman to the Leading Fireman, to combinedly and conjunctively possess each of the portions/ingredients of the eligibility criteria comprised in each holding appreciation letters as well as earning good rating in their ACRs. In sequel when the Hon’ble Apex Court in the citation referred above has imparted a strict construction on a plain and literal reading of the rule for promotion to the post of Professor/Assistant Professor without amending or altering its plain communication, on, its literal reading. 16. Consequently, in the instant case, too, the combined and conjunctive possession of both ingredients of the eligibility criteria, is, mandatory. 16. Consequently, in the instant case, too, the combined and conjunctive possession of both ingredients of the eligibility criteria, is, mandatory. The same cannot be dispensed with or whittled down as untenably done by the Selection Committee in according benefit of promotion to such Firemen, even though, senior to the petitioner or alter its clear and unambiguous import. Both elements of the eligibility criteria aforesaid are to be combinedly or conjunctively possessed by the aspirants, as both portions are not disjoined by the disconjunctive or in which later event, they could have been alternatively possessed. The Departmental Promotion Committee has added, altered and misread the true import of a clearly unambiguous communication in the relevant R & P Rules. While doing so it has caused incalculable miscarriage of justice. The vital rights of the petitioner have been arbitrarily jeopardized. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Annexure A-2 dated 9.2.2012 is quashed and set-aside and the petitioner is held entitled to the promotion from the date when respondents No. 3 to 10 were promoted, with consequential benefits. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.