Accountant experience does not satisfy prescribed managerial or coordination experience without supporting evidence.

The petitioner, working as an Accountant-cum-Management Information System Assistant at Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela, challenged the publication of the list of eligible and ineligible candidates for the post of Block Project Manager pursuant to the advertisement dated 20 March 2026 issued by Zila Panchayat, Raigarh.

His candidature was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite experience in managerial work.

The petitioner relied on an experience certificate, contending that it demonstrated the required managerial experience.

The State argued that the advertisement required two years’ experience in managerial and coordination work, whereas the petitioner’s certificate showed only experience as an Accountant, which was not equivalent to managerial or coordination experience.

1. Whether the petitioner’s experience as an Accountant could be treated as equivalent to the prescribed two years’ experience in managerial and coordination work for the post of Block Project Manager.

2. Whether the respondents’ decision to declare the petitioner ineligible warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the eligibility conditions prescribed in the recruitment advertisement, particularly the requirement of two years’ experience in managerial and coordination work.

It held that experience as an Accountant cannot, in the absence of supporting material, be equated with experience in a managerial or coordination capacity.

The Court further applied the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226, declining interference where the recruitment authority’s determination was consistent with the prescribed eligibility criteria and disclosed no legal infirmity.

The advertisement expressly required experience in managerial and coordination work.

The petitioner’s experience certificate described his work as that of an Accountant, but did not establish that he had performed managerial or coordination functions.

In the absence of material demonstrating equivalence between the two types of experience, the Court found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirement.

Consequently, the respondents’ decision to treat him as ineligible was neither arbitrary nor legally erroneous so as to justify interference under Article 226.

It found no infirmity in the respondents’ decision to reject his candidature and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.