Gauhati High Court
WA/23/2026 of SRI RITA KALITA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 28 April 2026
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
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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.
–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 such frivolous litigation. However, we restrain ourselves from doing so. This appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF
JUSTICE Comparing Assistant