Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010175252024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4543/2024 RITA KALITA W/O JAGAT KALITA R/O VILL KALJAR, P.O. BARAMA, P.S. BARAMA, DIST. BAKSA (BTAD), ASSAM, PIN-781346 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI-1. 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT BTC KOKRAJHAR-783370. 4:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER TIHU-BARAMA ICDS PROJECT BARAMA DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN-78146. Page No.# 2/5 5:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KOKRAJHAR BTAD (BTR) ASSAM PIN- 783370 6:SMTI. MAMATA ROY W/O MADAN DAS R/O VILL-KALJAR P.O. AND P.S. BARAMA DIST. BAKSA BTAD (BTR) ASSAM PIN-78134 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R M CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 10-11-2025 Heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Sr. standing counsel, BTC appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6, herein, as Anganwadi Worker of Kaljar-03, AWC No. 60 under Tihu-Barama ICDS Project. 3. The petitioner has assailed the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 Page No.# 3/5 on the ground that the advertisement dated 11-07-2022, issued in the matter for engagement of eligible candidates as Anganwadi Worker in the said centre had not specified that the post in question would be reserved for any of the reserved community candidates. Accordingly, it is projected that the post was advertised only for recruitment of general category candidates. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the materials on record, has submitted that the respondent No. 6 being a candidate belonging to the Other Backward Class (OBC) was not eligible for applying against the post in question in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11-07-2022 and the recruitment process was required to be limited only to the candidates belonging to the general community. 5. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel, BTC has disputed the above position and submits that the advertisement having not reserved the post in question, for any reserved category candidates, it was open for all category of candidates to apply for the recruitment against the same. She further submits that in the selection process, the respondent No. 6 having scored more marks than that of the petitioner, herein, and the said position not being disputed by the petitioner, she submits that there no error was committed by the authorities in selecting and appointing the respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker against Kaljar-03 Anganwadi Centre. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The advertisement dated 11-07-2022, insofar as it concerns the Kaljar-03 AWC, the Page No.# 4/5 post was not reserved for any reserved community candidates. In that view of the matter, the Court cannot contemplate that the post in question is only required to be filled up by considering the candidates belonging to the general community candidates. 8. Settled position of law is that when a post is advertised without there being any reservation indicated against the same, the said post is open for recruitment amongst the candidates belonging to all communities, both general and reserved. Accordingly, the respondent No. 6 was well within her rights to apply in pursuance to advertisement dated 11-07-2022. 9. Having noticed the above position, this Court finds that the respondent No. 6 in the selection process had scored more marks than that of the petitioner, herein, and the same is revealed from Exhibit-5 appended to the writ petition. The said position is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In view of the above position, this Court noticing that the challenge in the present proceeding is only to the effect that the respondent No. 6 being a candidate belonging to the OBC community could not have been permitted to appear in the recruitment process in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11-07-2022 for engagement as Anganwadi Worker for Kaljar-03 AWC, this Court having already concluded that there was no bar for reserved community candidates to apply in pursuance to the advertisement dated 11-07- 2022, for recruitment against the said post and further, this Court having also noticed that the respondent No. 6 had scored more marks than that of the petitioner, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the contention raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate interference. Page No.# 5/5 11. It may be noted, herein, that the respondent No. 6 has already been appointed and this Court, in view of the nature of challenge made in the present proceeding is not interfering with the same. 12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same consequently stands dismissed. 13. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant