1 CGHC010356562026 2026:CGHC:40154 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6724 of 2026 Ajay Lahre S/o Gopal Prasad Lahre, Aged About 29 Years Working As Accountant Cum Manage Information System ( M. I. S.) Assistant Janpad, Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh, C. G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur District Raipur C. G. 2 - The Mission Director S R L M Prakoshth, Office Of Development Commissioner Development Building Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C. G. 3 - The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, C. G. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat District Raigarh, C. G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.09.15 18:08:21 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 3 : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 15.09.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order (Annexure P/1), whereby the list of eligible and ineligible candidates for the post of Block Project Manager, pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.03.2026 issued by the Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, has been published. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the p, by referring to Serial No. 80 of the said list, submits that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience of managerial work. It is submitted that, as per the experience certificate placed on record as Annexure P/3, the petitioner possesses experience of managerial work and, therefore, rejection of the petitioner's candidature is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel, by referring to the 3 qualifications prescribed at page 15 of the advertisement, submits that the requisite experience prescribed for the post is two years' experience in managerial and coordination work. It is contended that, as is evident from Annexure P/3, the petitioner has experience as an Accountant, which cannot be treated as equivalent to experience in a managerial or coordination post. Thus, the petitioner does not possess the experience prescribed under the advertisement and, consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is justified. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of the advertisement, particularly the qualifications prescribed therein, it is evident that the candidate was required to possess the prescribed experience in managerial and coordination work. The experience certificate relied upon by the petitioner, i.e. Annexure P/3, reflects that the petitioner has worked as an Accountant. The experience of working as an Accountant cannot, in the absence of any material to the contrary, be equated with the requisite experience of working in a managerial or 4 coordination capacity prescribed under the advertisement. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the respondents in treating the petitioner as ineligible for the post in question. No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib