➡️Petitioner claimed that he fulfills the requirement of 15 years of experience as an Assistant Engineer, including 10 years of field experience. → He argued that his work as an In-charge Executive Engineer should not disqualify him. →Contended that the respondents misinterpreted the exclusion clause. ➡️Respondent asserted that the petitioner did not have 15 years of substantive experience as an Assistant Engineer, as part of his tenure included holding additional charge. → Highlighted that at the time of retirement, the petitioner served as an In-charge Executive Engineer, disqualifying him under the exclusion clause. ➡️The Court observed ⬇️ → The petitioner held the requisite qualifications, including a civil engineering degree and the required experience. → The Court found that the petitioner's tenure as an In-charge Executive Engineer did not negate his eligibility, as it was a higher qualification. → It emphasized that the clause requiring 15 years of experience as Assistant Engineer did not mandate substantive capacity alone. ➡️The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application and, if necessary, arrange for a fresh interview to assess his suitability for the post. The Court held that higher qualifications or responsibilities do not disqualify a candidate for positions requiring lower qualifications. Petitioner’s exclusion was unreasonable and based on a flawed interpretation of the eligibility clause. *Case Birendra Singh Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Before the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court WP 31629/2024 Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi J