Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010274822025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/23/2026 SRI RITA KALITA R/O. VILLAGE-KALJAR, P.O.BARAMA, DISTRICT-BAKSA BTAD,ASSAM, PIN-781346. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTATED 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-781346. 5:) THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REPRESENTATED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KOKRAJHAR BTAD BTR ASSAMPIN-783370. 6:SMTI MAMATA ROY R/O. VILLAGE-KALJAR P.O. P.S. BARAMA DISTRICT-BAKSA BTAD BTR ASSAM PIN-781346 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.M. Choudhury, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. N. Choudhury, Standing Counsel, BTC. : Ms. R.B. Bora, Government Advocate, Assam. Page No.# 2/3 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.04.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant. Ms. N. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, BTC and Ms. R.B. Bora, learned Government Advocate, Assam are present. The appellant, a General category candidate from the local economically backward background, had questioned the appointment of respondent No.6 as an Anganwadi Worker at Kalijar-03 Anganwadi location. The advertisement against which the appointment was made, was not circumscribed by any reservation of the post, meaning thereby that it was an open competition. Respondent No.6 scored more marks than the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that since it was an open competition, she should have been accommodated as a General candidate and not respondent No.6 who hails from OBC category. We must say the claim of the appellant is based on no ground whatsoever. The learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contentions of the appellant. But for the economically straitened circumstances of the appellant, as claimed by her lawyer, we would have imposed cost on Page No.# 3/3 such frivolous litigation. However, we restrain ourselves from doing so. This appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant