JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "....to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for the Post of Principal Grade-II on the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled criteria prescribed under the Notification No.1/2019 as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and consequently direct the Respondents to consider his case for the post of Principal Grade-II in the 2nd Respondent Society and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case". 2. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learnedcounsel for the petitioner,the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare (AP) appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri LV.S.Naga Raju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondentAPSWREIS. With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition itself is being disposed of. 3. The petitioner before this Court claims that he is entitled to be considered as candidate for the post of Principal Grade-II. It is his contention that on a wrongful interpretation of the rules he has been deprived of the chance to be selected. 4. Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner is a trained graduate teacher, who has been functioning as a Junior Lecturer since 01.10.2007. Although he is only a Trained Graduate Teacher, learned counsel points out that he worked as a Junior Lecturer from August, 2001 to June, 2007 and later from August, 2009 to 04.06.2013. It is his contention that this experience of the petitioner has been overlooked by the respondent in considering the petitioner's case. Learned counsel relies upon the certificates, which are filed to show that the petitioner worked as Junior Lecturer in this period. The petitioner has also submitted a representation asking the respondents to consider this experience of 9 years, but the same was rejected by the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel relies upon the eligibility conditions, which are reproduced hereunder: "V. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS: 1. Academic Qualifications: (a) District Coordinator: 1. A Post Graduate Degree from any university recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC) 2. Administrative experience of 3 years in State/Central Govt. Organizations (b) Principal Grade-II 1. 5. Learned counsel relies upon the eligibility conditions, which are reproduced hereunder: "V. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS: 1. Academic Qualifications: (a) District Coordinator: 1. A Post Graduate Degree from any university recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC) 2. Administrative experience of 3 years in State/Central Govt. Organizations (b) Principal Grade-II 1. A Post Graduate Degree with 1st class (with minimum 60% marks) from any university recognized by University Grants Commissioner (UGC) 2. A B.Ed Degree from UGC/NCTE recognized University with minimum of 50% marks. 3. A total teaching experience of not less than 10 years including (a) 3 years of experience as PGT or JL in any Govt/govt.Aided school/Jr.College OR (b) 3 years of administrative experience as Head Master/Principal of a High School or Jr. College funded by State/Central/Union Territory Government". 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause V(b)3 falls for consideration and that the teaching experience that a person has acquired cannot be ignored. He submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner meets the educational qualification. It is his contention that experience is something that is gathered/earned by discharging duties. It is something that is inherent in an individual. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interpretation placed by the respondent is not correct. He also relies upon the order passed by the learned single Judge passed in W.P.no.1460 of 2020 to argue that the experience should be considered. 7. In reply to this, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent argues vehemently that the conditions of eligibility are not fulfilled and that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for the post either as a direct recruitee or even as a promote. He relies upon the paras 9 to 11 of the counter specifically and argues that as the petitioner is not a "regular" Post Graduate Teacher, he cannot be considered for the post. With regard to the certificates also he submits that the same was issued by the Principal without verifying the service rules and regulations. His ultimate conclusion is that the petitioner is only a Trained Gradate Teacher and not a regular Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). He argues that unless one is a regular Post Graduate Teacher he cannot be considered for the post. The learned Government Pleader supports this argument. 8. His ultimate conclusion is that the petitioner is only a Trained Gradate Teacher and not a regular Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). He argues that unless one is a regular Post Graduate Teacher he cannot be considered for the post. The learned Government Pleader supports this argument. 8. This Court after hearing both the counsel notices that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent proceeds on the basis that the petitioner should have worked as "Regular" Post Graduate Teacher. The three years experience which is prescribed in Rule 3 (a) applies only to regular Post Graduate Teachers or Junior Lecturers as per the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner is not regular Post Graduate Teacher or a Junior Lecturer, he has not been considered for the post. As far as the educational qualification of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute at all. 9. The short and simple question, therefore, is whether the petitioner meets the criteria prescribed with regard to experience. This Court notices that in the notification that is published does not state that the petitioner should be a "regular" Post Graduate Teacher. The inclusion of the word "regular" in the qualification prescribed for considering the petitioner's case would be contrary to the settled rules of interpretation. Words or qualifications which were not included when the Notification was issued cannot be subsequently brought into play to consider the eligibility of a candidate. The rule in the opinion of this Court talks of three years experience as Post Graduate Teacher or Junior Lecturer in any Government/Government Aided College. The word "Regular" cannot be included. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent on the candidate being a "Regular" Teacher is over-ruled. 10. The next question is whether the petitioner has the requisite experience. As can be seen from a plain language interpretation of Rule 3 (a) what is required is teaching "experience" of not less than 10 years including 3 years of "experience" as a Junior Lecturer. It is not specified that the candidate should hold the post of a Junior Lecturer or be appointed as a Junior Lecturer. Experience of teaching is the criteria prescribed. The experience certificates, which are filed, clearly show that the petitioner worked as a RTJL in Botany. It is not specified that the candidate should hold the post of a Junior Lecturer or be appointed as a Junior Lecturer. Experience of teaching is the criteria prescribed. The experience certificates, which are filed, clearly show that the petitioner worked as a RTJL in Botany. It is his specific contention that he has discharged his duties as Junior Lecturer in Botany in two spells of six and four years respectively as are mentioned in the certificates. The contents of the certificates or the dates mentioned therein are not really disputed by the 2nd respondent in their counter. It is merely stated that these are not issued as per the service conditions. Therefore, it is clear that the dates/periods mentioned by the petitioner are correct. 11. This Court also has to conclude that experience that is gathered or earned by a person is something that arises from the performance of the duties. This is inherent in a person. In the case on hand, the petitioner has discharged the duties as a Junior Lecturer in Botany for almost ten years in two spells. The actual experience that he has gained by working as Junior Lecturer is something that he would have absorbed by himself. It is something that he has specially imbibed/acquired and this cannot be brushed away. The experience that a person has gained while working in a job is something that he will carry with him for rest of his life. In the case on hand the petitioner has functioned as a Junior Lecturer for full ten years and has 18 years of teaching experience. The experience that he has gained and which he has retained as a teacher is something that is retained by him forever. The meaning of the word 'experience' from three leading dictionaries is reproduced below:- As per "Chambers Dictionary" Experience means - Practical acquaintance with any matter gained by trial, long and varied observation, personal or general, wisdom derived from the changes and trials of life; the passing through any event or course of events by which one is affected; such an event; anything received by the mind, such as sensation, perception or knowledge; test, trial or experiment. As per "Concise Oxford English Dictionary" Experience means - (1) Practical contact with and observation of facts or events, (2) Knowledge or skill gained over time, (3) An event or activity which leaves a lasting impression. As per "Concise Oxford English Dictionary" Experience means - (1) Practical contact with and observation of facts or events, (2) Knowledge or skill gained over time, (3) An event or activity which leaves a lasting impression. As per "P.RamanathaAiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon" Experience means - Knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered or undergone. 12. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there should be a purposive interpretation of the rule relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent and the three years experience as Junior Lecturer should be interpreted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has more than three times experience stipulated in Rule 3 (a). Practical wisdom/experience that is gained due to constant exposure is the greatest teacher. In this case the petitioner has had the exposure to teaching as a Junior Lecturer for more than 3 years. 13. Even in cases of joint ventures in contracts the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the experience of a partner/firm is the experience of a newly formed joint venture. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India pierced the corporate veil to look into the experience of the persons in the Junior Lecturer. Although this not a case of contract still the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India cannot be overlooked when dealing with the experience that a person has. Experience is something that is earned/accrued over time. In this case the petitioner discharged duties as a Junior Lecturer for almost 10 years. This cannot be ignored or wished away. 14. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Principal Grade-II. The interpretation placed by the respondents on the eligibility criteria is over-ruled. As it is stated that posts are vacant and there is no express denial of this fact, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to an order. The respondents are directed to immediately consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as prayed for. 15. With the above observation the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.