JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishabh Tripathi and Sri K.M.Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed, for the following main reliefs :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 4.7.2011 passed by the Director of Education (Secondary), U.P. , Lucknow (opposite party No. 2) contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Opposite Parties to provide the financial approval to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) in Ram Deshik Sanskrit Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalya, Ankaripur, District Faizabad as admittedly the opposite party NO. 6 and 7 are juniors to the petitioner and they have been accorded financial approval." 3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) on 1.7.2005 by the Manager, Committee of Management by following the due process in Ram Deshik Sanskrit Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalya Rampur, Ankaripur, District Faizabad (now Ayodhya) (in short "Institution"). The petitioner joined his duties on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) on 4.7.2005. In the year 2008, with regard to taking the Institution in grant-in-aid, the name of the Teacher as well as Principal was submitted before the authorities concerned in which the name of the opposite party No. 6 and 7 does not find place. On 12.08.2010, the State Government issued a Government Order by which the institution of the petitioner was taken into grant-in-aid list. When the manager came to know regarding the grant-in-aid of the Institution, he immediately changed the list of teachers by mixing the name of his son and daughter-in-law viz Alok Kumar Tiwari (Opposite Party No. 7) and Mithilesh Kumar (opposite party no. 6). Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad, sent a letter to the opposite party no. 2 on 29.03.2011 with the observation that two different lists have been submitted in respect of teaching staff and requested the respondent no. 2 to do the needful in the matter. From the records of District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad it appears that appointment of opposite party nos. 6 and 7 were of 01.07.2009 and 02.07.2009 respectively and petitioner has been working since 04.07.2005. 2 to do the needful in the matter. From the records of District Inspector of Schools, Faizabad it appears that appointment of opposite party nos. 6 and 7 were of 01.07.2009 and 02.07.2009 respectively and petitioner has been working since 04.07.2005. The petitioner is still working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) since the date of joining. The petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject) and being so entitled to salary from State. 4. Opposing the writ petition, the respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7 is also on record. 5. In the affidavit filed by the opposite partiy nos. 4, 6 and 7 it is stated that Ram Deshik Sanskrit Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalya, Ramapur, Faizabad, where the petitioner was working, is affiliated to Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi( in short "University") and as per the Government Order dated 28.06.1993, the qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern/Adhunik) is Post Graduate with Second Division, whereas the petitioner is Post Graduate with Third Division and keeping in view the same the financial approval with regard to appointment of petitioner was not given by the respondent no. 2. 6. Pressing the writ petition for the reliefs sought the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the recognized Institution affiliated to Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, imparting education upto the Uttar Madhyma, on the post of Assistant Teacher and qualification provided for the posts of Assistant Teacher of Modern Subjects in Ordinance of University dated 26.06.1993 is only Post Graduate and not Post Graduate with Second Division and as such the petitioner is entitled to financial approval as also the salary from State Exchequer. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State Sri Rishabh Tripathi as also the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 Sri K.M.Shukla, submitted that in the instant case, as per Ordinance dated 26.06.1993 the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teachers (Modern Subjects/Adhunik) is Post Graduate with Second Division whereas the petitioner, admittedly is Post Graduate with Third Second as such he does not fulfill the minimum requisite qualification consequently he is not entitled to salary for State Exchequer. 8. 8. On the basis of pleadings on record and submission of learned Counsel for the parties that the questioner(s) for consideration are that (i) Whether petitioner is eligible and qualifed for the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject/Adhunik) being Post Graduate with Third Division and (ii) whether the requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject/Adhunik). 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 10. For deciding the questions involved in the instant writ petition, it would be appropriate to take notes of the relevant portion of Ordinance dated 28.06.1993 and earlier Ordinance dated 26.09.1991 of the University prescribing minimum qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subjects/Adhunik) in the recognized Institution imparting education upto Uttar Madhyma affiliated to University. Relevant portion of Ordinance dated 26.09.1991 reads as under :- ^^4&mRrje/;ek Lrj rd ekU;rkÁkIr fo|ky; ds v/;kidksa dh U;wure vgZrk,a fuEufyf[kr gksaxh%& ¼d½ lEc) fo"k; esa de ls de f}rh; Js.kh esa LukrdksRrj mikf/kA ¼[k½ Áf'k{k.k vkSj ijEijkxr mikf/k dks ojh;rkA** Relevant portion of Ordinance dated 28.06.1993 reads as under :- ^^mRrj e/;ek LRkj rd ekU;rk ÁkIr fo|ky;ksa ds v/;kidksa dh U;wure vgZrk,¡ fuEufyf[kr gksxh& d½ lEc) fo"k; esa de ls de f}rh; Js.kh esa ^^d** oxhZ; fo"k; esa vkpk;Z mikf/k vkSj vk/kqfud fo"k;ksa ds v/;kidksa ds inksa ds fy, LukrdksRrj mikf/kA^^ 11. To answer the questioner(s) aforesaid, this Court of the view that English version of Ordinance dated 28.06.1993 is also required to be considered but the same has not been produced by any of the party and accordingly the free hand translation of the same reads as under :- "Minimum Second Class in related subject for "A" category subjects Acharya Degree and for the posts of Assistant Teachers (Modern Subjects/ Adhunik Vishyon) Post Graduate Degree." 12. From the above quoted provision, under consideration, it appears that word "And/ vkSj " has been used therein between two category of Assistant Teachers. Now the question is that what would be effect of word "And" in the provision. 13. "And" is a grammatical conjunction used to indicate that one or more classes/cases it connects. Further, it connects clauses or sentences and is generally used in cumulative sense. 14. The word "and" is generally conjunctive and in only exceptional circumstances, the word "and" may be capable of being read as "or", to manifest intention of legislature if the context so demands. Further, it connects clauses or sentences and is generally used in cumulative sense. 14. The word "and" is generally conjunctive and in only exceptional circumstances, the word "and" may be capable of being read as "or", to manifest intention of legislature if the context so demands. In normal course the term "and" has a cumulative sense, requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that are joined together. (Sec: S.Krishnan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 301 : 1951 SCJ 453 : 1951 SCR 621 ; Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel, AIR 1964 SC 1099 : (1964) 2 SCA 505 : (1964) 6 SCR 129 ; Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 1450 : 1968 Cr.LJ 19 (1969) 1 SCR 219 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1980 SC 538 ; and Fakir Mohd. v. Sita Ram, AIR 2002 SC 433 : (2002) 1 SCC 741 : JT 2001 (10) SC 530. 15. Considering the aforesaid including the earlier Ordinance dated 26.09.1991 and the settled legal preposition with regard to use of word "And", I am of the view that the effect of word "And/ vkSj " used in the relevant part of Ordinance dated 28.06.1993 is that the expression "Minimum Second Class" is required for appointment of Assistant Teacher on post(s) related to, "A" Category Subjects as also for "Modern Subjects". 16. Thus, the answer to question no. 2 is that Post Graduate Degree with minimum Second Class is required for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject/Adhunik). 17. In view of above, the answer to the question no. 1, is that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher (Modern Subject/Adhunik). In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled to the salary from the State Exchequer. 18. Thus, the writ petition for the relief sought is misconceived and hence dismissed accordingly. 19. No order as to costs.