JUDGMENT : Swapna Joshi, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to grant admission to the petitioner to B.Ed. course in respondent no.2 College, or any other Centre. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. The petitioner applied for admission to B.Ed. course for theacademic session 2016-17. The petitioner passed the written test conducted by the respondent no.1. The petitioner received a letter from respondent no.1 offering admission to him for B.Ed. course. However, he was not granted admission on the ground that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria specified in clause (4) of the Offer Letter dated 22.4.2016. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 has acted arbitrarily in depriving admission to him despite the fact that he fulfills all the eligibility criteria. 4. Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per the terms of the advertisement, a candidate must possess either a certificate of trained in-service teachers in elementary education or secure a certificate of NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face mode. According to him, the petitioner fulfills all the prescribed eligibility criteria. The advertisement demonstrates that in order to be eligible, a candidate must possess a degree with minimum 55% marks and must be trained in-service teacher in elementary education or must possess a NCTE recognised teacher education programme certificate through facetoface mode. According to Shri Joshi, the petitioner fulfills both the eligibility criteria inasmuch as he has secured a degree certificate with 65.92% marks and has also secured Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) in October 2007 as in-service candidate while in service with Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. Thus, according to Shri Joshi, there is no reason to deprive the petitioner of his right to admission in B.Ed.course. 5. Per contra, Shri P.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 contended that perusal of clause (b) sub-clause (ii) of the advertisement, would reveal that the candidate other than in-service candidate would be eligible, only if he has completed NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face mode. Clause (i) speaks that only trained in-service teachers in elementary education service are covered under the said clause. Clause (i) speaks that only trained in-service teachers in elementary education service are covered under the said clause. Shri Patil, contended that a trained teacher means a teacher who has completed NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face mode and therefore, the candidate covered under clause b(ii) must be a candidate who has completed NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face mode. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is not eligible for admission in B.Ed. course. 6. After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the record, it is noticed that the relevant extract of the advertisement stipulates as under : “Eligibility: a. Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the master’s Degree in Sciences/Social Sciences/Commerce/Humanity, Bachelor’s in Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics with 55% marks or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme. and b. The following categories are eligible to be the students of B.Ed.(ODL): (i) Trained in-service teachers in elementary education. or (ii) The candidates who have completed a NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face mode. ............” 7. As regards clause (a), the petitioner has secured degree certificate with 62.92% marks and has also secured Diploma in Education (D.Ed). As far as clause (b) is concerned, the petitioner is a trained inservice teacher in elementary education. It is clearly mentioned in the advertisement that either the student should be trained in-service teacher in elementary education or candidates who have completed NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face mode. 8. It is significant to note 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. 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’. 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’. And as pointed out by LORD HALSBURY the reading of ‘or’ as ‘and’ is not to be resorted to, “unless some other part of the same statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done.” Where provision is clear and unambiguous the word ‘or’ cannot be read as ‘and’ by applying the principles of reading down.” 9. Thus, on a plain reading of the rule for admission, it is clear that a candidate should either be a trained in-service teacher in elementary education or should complete NCTE recognised teacher education programme through face-to-face mode. The petitioner has fulfilled the criteria laid down in clause (b)(i) of the advertisement. The condition in the offer letter dated 22.4.2016 that the applicant should possess a certificate of having completed NCTE recognised teacher education programme seems to be improper. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for admission in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2016-17 in the respondent no.2 College. The respondents should grant admission to the petitioner at the earliest. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.