Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010052612026 2026:GAU-AS:7542-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/87/2026 SUMIT PAUL S/O LATE SUDEB PAUL, R/O DAK BANGLA ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN 788710 -VERSUS- THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECY. MINISTRY OF CO OPERATIVE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM. 2:THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 22 3:THE DIST DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DIST. SRIBHUMI. 4:HUSSAIN AHMED (ROLL NO 038) S/O LATE MD. ABDUL MALIK R/O VILL. NOGHORIA P.O. BARAIGRAM DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN 788723 Page No.# 2/4 5:FAZLUNA BEGUM (ROLL NO 149) W/O AMAL UDDIN R/O WATIR ALI ROAD HADARGRAM WARD NO 22 P.O. KARIMGANJ DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN 788711 6:KAMAL UDDIN (ROLL NO 855) S/O ABDUL SUKKUR VILL. DHALOPER P.O. ASHAL KANDI DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN 788231 For the appellant : Mr. A.B.T. Haque, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. G. Bordoloi, S.C., Co-operation Department for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 01-06-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. A.B.T. Haque, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Co-operation Department for respondent Nos.1 to 3. By this appeal, the judgment and order dated 10.02.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 381/2015 has been challenged. Page No.# 3/4 An advertisement was issued way-back in the year 2014 for appointment of nine Peons under the establishment of the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karimganj. Out of the nine posts, two posts were reserved for OBC/MOBC category candidates, whereas 7 posts were kept unreserved out of which 3 posts were allocated to women candidates. The appellant claims to have applied as an eligible OBC candidate, who underwent written screening test, but his name was not found in the list of successful candidates. It has been submitted that to his utter surprise, he found the respondent No.4 as a selected candidate under the OBC category, even though respondent No.4 had applied under the General category. This contention was raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge on the basis of a declaration of the department regarding roll numbers of various candidates under various categories, and the roll number of respondent No.4 was found mentioned in the General category. The main contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge, therefore, was that a person of General category could not have been accommodated in the category meant for OBC/MOBC category candidate. It appears that the afore-noted contentions were countered before the learned Single Judge by the State respondents as also the respondent No.4 contending that the respondent No.4 was an OBC category candidate and that any misrepresentation in the declaration of the State was later modified, of course, belatedly. Page No.# 4/4 There is no cavil over the fact that the respondent No.4 is an OBC category candidate and there was no material before the learned Single Judge to conclude otherwise that the appellant had performed better than the respondent No.4. Merely because the roll number of the respondent No.4 was shown in the general category list, it could not have been conclusively held that the respondent No.4 was not from OBC category. The learned Standing Counsel, Co-operation Department has also submitted that the caste certificate of respondent No.4 was found to be valid on scrutiny and taking into account the merit of the respondent No.4, he was accommodated on one post reserved for OBC/MOBC. We are in agreement with the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the recruitment process was initiated in the year 2014 and the respondent No.4 has been working in that post for the last 11 years, which requires no interference at this stage. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant