JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for his appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II as per his merit ascertained on his application pursuant to the advertisement dated 31-7-2018. 2. The advertisement in issue sought applications for appointment on 4762 posts of Teacher Grade III Level II (Non TSP Area). The merit list amongst the applicants fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criterion was to be prepared on the aggregate of marks based on 70% marks at the REET and 30% marks at Graduation. The petitioner fancying himself with requisite eligibility applied as a general category candidate. On evaluation of his application he obtained 71.35% marks (56.47% of REET and 14.88% of BA) in the aggregate while the cut off for appointment on the post in issue in the general category was 71% marks. The petitioner was yet not appointed. On enquiry he gathered that according to the notification dated 31-8-2009 issued by the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) adverted to in the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 having been admitted to the Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed. in Sanskrit) course post 31-8-2009 the minimum marks at the Graduation required of him was 50% while he had secured only 49.61% marks thereat. He was thus not eligible to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II. Hence this petition. 3. The case of the petitioner is that it is not in dispute and cannot be so that he was admitted to the Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed. Sanskrit) course for the academic year 2009-2010. Admission to the said course were initiated under an advertisement issued in the month of April, 2009. The eligibility for admission was 45% at the Graduation level. The petitioner with 49.61% marks in the Graduation examination applied for admission on 9-5-2009. The Pre Shiksha Shastri Test (PSST) requisite for admissions was conducted on 25-5- 2009 and the result thereof declared in June, 2009. The petitioner was successful. The counselling for allotment of colleges on meritcum-preference was notified on 4-7-2009. The petitioner registered himself for online counselling with deposit of notified fee Rs.2000/- on 7-7-2009. The first round of counselling was however postponed to 23-7-2009, and held between 31-7-2009 and 3-8-2009. College allotted, students admitted and the Session was commenced. The petitioner was successful. The counselling for allotment of colleges on meritcum-preference was notified on 4-7-2009. The petitioner registered himself for online counselling with deposit of notified fee Rs.2000/- on 7-7-2009. The first round of counselling was however postponed to 23-7-2009, and held between 31-7-2009 and 3-8-2009. College allotted, students admitted and the Session was commenced. For remainder vacant seats in the Shiksha Shastri course, a second round counselling as per notification of 21-8-2009 was held between 26- 8-2009 and 28-8-2009. The petitioner was considered at the said counselling and allotted a college for pursuing the Shiksha Shastri course 2009-2010. He was then admitted on 4-9-2009. It has been submitted that the petitioner s admission in the 2009-2010 Shiksha Shastri course would in the circumstances relate back to the commencement of the relevant academic year going back to admissions in the first round of counselling between 31-7-2009 and 3-8-2009. Hence the petitioner on an active reading of clause 9.3(ii) and 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 has to be considered eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III Level II as per his merit and cannot be held ineligible for reason of his 49.61% marks at the Graduation level. 4. Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 for appointment of Teacher Grade III Level II vide clause 9.3(iii) provided that the candidates who took admission in B.Ed. course subsequent to 31-8-2009 should have secured 50% marks at the Graduation level to be eligible. Since the petitioner was on record admitted to the Shiksha Shastri course on 4-9-2009 i.e. after 31-8-2009, he was therefore not eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II his merit notwithstanding. 5. Mr. Rajesh Sharma counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was admitted to the Shiksha Shastri course following the advertisement of April, 2009, counselling wherefor had commenced in July, 2009 the date of admission was wholly fortuitous. Several had been admitted in the session of 2009-2010 prior to 31-8-2009. The petitioner himself participated in the second round of counselling between 26-8-2009 and 28-8-2009 and was allotted a college thereat. Only the formality of admission stretched to 4-9-2009. Several had been admitted in the session of 2009-2010 prior to 31-8-2009. The petitioner himself participated in the second round of counselling between 26-8-2009 and 28-8-2009 and was allotted a college thereat. Only the formality of admission stretched to 4-9-2009. The petitioner having been admitted to the Shiksha Shastri course 2009-2010 first admissions whereto were made between 31-7-2009 and 3-8-2009, all subsequent admissions in the said academic year where the substantial part of the admission process was completed before 31-8-2009 would relate to the date of first admission, and where it not be so, students admitted to Shiksha Shastri course in the same academic session at the same college plainly constituting a homogeneous group would be arbitrarily classified into different groups without either any intelligible differentia or any nexus sought to be achieved. Any provision on which such impermissible classification made would be wholly unsustainable and arbitrary falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rajesh Sharma submitted that in the circumstances, lest the date of 31-8-2009 in clause 9.3 (iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 be set aside as arbitrary and unconstitutional, this court should read down the said requirement to entail that those who were admitted to Shiksha Shastri course in the academic year 2009-2010 and admission processes had been substantially completed prior to 31-8-2009 no matter the admission was formally made thereafter would be eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III Level II, pursuant to the advertisement dated 31-7-2018, if they had 45% at the Graduation level. 6. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania opposed the petition and emphasized the cut of date of 31-8-2009 for admission into a Shiksha Shastri course as provided for in clause 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 for determining whether the petitioner s 45% marks in Graduation sufficed for him to be appointed as Teacher Grade III Level II. He submitted that the petitioner without dispute having been admitted to the Shiksha Shastri course on 4-9-2009 and having secured less than 50% marks (49.61%) at Graduation is not eligible to be appointed as a Teacher Grade-III Level-II pursuant to the advertisement in issue. No other objection with regard to eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II pursuant to the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 has been taken in reply to the writ petition or in the course of arguments. Heard. Considered. 7. No other objection with regard to eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II pursuant to the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 has been taken in reply to the writ petition or in the course of arguments. Heard. Considered. 7. Clause 9.3(ii) and 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7- 2018 relevant to the issue arising in this petition read as under: 8. Admittedly when the petitioner applied for admission in Shiksha Shastri course pursuant to the notification in April, 2009, the notification dated 27-9-2007 and determinative of his eligibility therefor was operative. According thereto only 45% marks in Graduation were required for such admission. The petitioner had 49.61% marks at Graduation. The admission process in Shiksha Shastri course including the written examination, deposition of counselling fee by the petitioner and allotment of college for the academic session 2009-2010 after the second round of counselling was completed on 28-8-2009. But the petitioner was formally admitted on 4-9-2009, even while admissions of others to the same class, after the first round of counselling, had been completed before 31-8-2009. Quite evidently the academic session to which the petitioner was admitted for the Shiksha Shastri course was 2009- 2010. The admission of the petitioner in the said course would in the circumstances relate back to the date of admissions after the first round of counselling which were well before 31-8-2009. And were it not so, the resultant absurdity would lead to the classification of a homogeneous group of students admitted into the Shiksha Shastri course in academic session 2009-2010 without any intelligible differentia and without any nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification. Some students in the petitioner s class of 2009-2010 admitted after the first round of counselling before 31- 8-2009 would be eligible even with less than 50% marks in Graduation to be appointed as Teacher Grade III Level II, while the petitioner from the same class admitted through the same process would be not so and stand ineligible for reason of less than 50% marks at Graduation. Such a peculiar, uneven and discriminatory situation between equals students of Shiksha Shastri class of 2009- 2010 would be constitutionally unsustainable and liable to be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation the court has to read down the potentially offending provision to keep it within the ken of Constitutionality. Such a peculiar, uneven and discriminatory situation between equals students of Shiksha Shastri class of 2009- 2010 would be constitutionally unsustainable and liable to be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation the court has to read down the potentially offending provision to keep it within the ken of Constitutionality. 9. For the aforesaid reason, I would construe clause 9.3(iii) read with clause 9.3(ii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 to entail eligibility for those with 45% marks at Graduation who had substantially undergone the admission process to Shiksha Shastri course and were allotted college for the purpose before 31-8-2009 though admitted thereafter and where the first admissions to the said course were made before 31-8-2009. The case of the petitioner falls in the above category as he took admission to Shiksha Shatri course pursuant to advertisement in April, 2009, when the notification dated 27-9-2007 was operative, according to which 45% at Graduation was the eligibility and the petitioner participated in the Pre Shiksha Shastri Test on 25-5-2009, result whereof was declared in June, 2009. Having passed and after depositing the requisite counselling fee Rs.2000/- he participated in counselling between 26-8-2009 and 28-8-2009 and was allotted college before 31-8- 2009 though admitted on 4-9-2009. 10. I am of the considered view that the above interpretation would be in consonance not only with the harmonious interpretation, save the constitutionality of clause 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 being put to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and also be rooted in the equity as it should be when the court exercises its equitable extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to eschew manifest injustice. Justice in the instant case would be lost on a purely literal and mechanical interpretation of clauses 9.3(ii) and 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 without regard to the selection process and admission process for Shiksha Shastri course in academic session 2009-2010. 11. Consequently, I would hold the petitioner falling, by resort to the doctrine of relation back, within clause 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 deeming him to be admitted in the facts of the case to the Shiksha Shastri course 2009-2010 prior to 31-8-2009. 11. Consequently, I would hold the petitioner falling, by resort to the doctrine of relation back, within clause 9.3(iii) of the advertisement dated 31-7-2018 deeming him to be admitted in the facts of the case to the Shiksha Shastri course 2009-2010 prior to 31-8-2009. The petitioner should resultantly now be considered, subject to fulfilling other requirements of eligibility, for appointment as Teacher Grade III Level II as per his competitive merit in the category he applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31-7- 2018. This be done within four weeks from today. Consequences otherwise than monetary benefits to follow. 12. The petition stands allowed accordingly.