Dismissed

Mamta Chouhan Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026WPS/3287/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of District Mission Coordinator. The court held that the petitioner failed to produce any document demonstrating the requisite three years of experience required under the advertisement clauses, leading to the lawful rejection of her application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Mamta Chouhan Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed bySHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date: 2026.09.16 17:33:04 +0530

CGHC010127132026

2026:CGHC:40478

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 3287 of 2026

¶8

Mamta Chouhan Sharma D/o Vashudev Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Behind Laxmi Gudi Temple, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Collector Jashpur District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Neha Nayak W/o Anil Kumar Nayak Aged About 32 Years R/o Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Anil Pandey, Govt. Advocate

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

16.09.2026

¶22

By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the rejection of her candidature. The petitioner had applied for the post of District Mission Coordinator pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2025 issued by the Office of the Collector, Women and Child Development Department, District Jashpur.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualification and experience; however, her application has been rejected on the ground that she does not possess the requisite experience prescribed under Clause 1.1 of the advertisement.

¶24

Learned State counsel submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is reflected in Annexure P/2, which contains the details of the candidates whose candidature was considered and who were found eligible or ineligible for further participation in the recruitment process. Referring to the reason assigned for rejection of the petitioner’s

¶25

¶26

candidature, he submits that the experience possessed by the petitioner was not found to be in accordance with the requirements of the post for which she had applied. He further submits that, even in the present writ petition, the petitioner has neither stated nor annexed any document demonstrating the experience on the basis of which she had applied for the post of District Mission Coordinator.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, particularly the prescribed qualifications and experience for the post as stipulated in the advertisement, as well as the reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting the petitioner’s candidature.

¶28

It appears from Clause 1.1 of the advertisement dated 09.04.2025 that, for the post of District Mission Coordinator, three years’ experience in a Government or Non-Government Organization was required. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the requisite experience prescribed under Clause 1.1 of the advertisement. The petitioner has failed to produce any document or otherwise demonstrate what experience she possessed as on the date of submission of her application. She has also not

¶29

¶30

filed any document establishing that she possessed the requisite experience in terms of Clause 1.1 of the advertisement. In the absence of any document demonstrating the requisite experience possessed by the petitioner for the post of District Mission Coordinator, it appears that her candidature has rightly been rejected.

¶31

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶34

Shoaib

Mamta Chouhan Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Chouhan Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases