Rejection of candidature is valid when the applicant fails to establish prescribed experience.

The petitioner applied for the post of District Mission Coordinator pursuant to an advertisement dated 9 April 2025 issued by the Office of the Collector, Women and Child Development Department, District Jashpur.

Her candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the requisite experience prescribed under Clause 1.1 of the advertisement.

The petitioner challenged the rejection before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner possessed the three years’ experience in a Government or Non-Government Organization required under Clause 1.1 of the advertisement for appointment as District Mission Coordinator.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for failure to establish the prescribed experience was legally sustainable.

The Court applied the eligibility conditions prescribed in Clause 1.1 of the advertisement dated 9 April 2025, which required three years’ experience in a Government or Non-Government Organization for the post of District Mission Coordinator.

A candidate challenging rejection of candidature must demonstrate, through pleadings and supporting documents, that she possessed the prescribed eligibility as on the relevant date.

Where the requisite experience is neither established nor supported by documentary evidence, rejection of the candidature is sustainable.

The Court examined the prescribed qualification and experience under the advertisement and the reason recorded for rejecting the petitioner’s candidature.

Although the petitioner asserted that she possessed the requisite experience, she failed to state what experience she had acquired as on the date of submitting her application and did not produce any document establishing compliance with Clause 1.1.

In the absence of proof that she had completed the required three years’ experience in a Government or Non-Government Organization, the Court found no basis to interfere with the respondents’ assessment that she was ineligible.

The writ petition was consequently found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.