JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4; Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.5. 2. The petitioner has challenged the selection of the respondent No.5 vide the Select List published on 01.07.2024 and the subsequent appointment of the respondent No.5 to the post of the Office Peon in the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat. 3. The facts involved in the instant proceedings is that on 14.08.2023, the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat had issued an advertisement calling from eligible candidates for filling up of two posts of Office Peon. One post was reserved for Schedule Caste category and the other post was reserved for Schedule Tribe (Hills) category. In the said advertisement, the Selection Process was duly mentioned. The said Selection Process as mentioned in the said advertisement is reproduced herein below:- Selection Process Stage Description Stage 1 Common Written Test of 50 (Fifty) marks Duration: 01 (One) Hour. Syllabus: (i) English, (ii) General Knowledge & (iii) Assamese Stage 2 Interview/viva-voce (20 Marks). 4. From the above quoted Selection Process, it is seen that Stage 1 pertains to a common written test of 50 marks and the Stage 2 pertains to an interview/viva-voce of 20 marks. Pursuant thereto, the selection was conducted. 5. It is relevant to take note of that the present proceedings only pertains to the selection so made in respect to the post of the Office Peon reserved for Schedule Tribe (Hills) category and not in respect to the Schedule Caste category. 6. In the written test which was held on 25.02.2024, it is seen that the petitioner herein obtained 32 marks out of 50 marks whereas the respondent No.5 only obtained 12 marks out of 50 marks. Surprisingly the viva-voce interview, which was held on 30.06.2024 was held of 60 marks thereby giving 20 marks against each interviewer. The petitioner was allotted 51 marks out of 60 marks whereas the respondent No.5 was allotted 56 marks. Surprisingly the viva-voce interview, which was held on 30.06.2024 was held of 60 marks thereby giving 20 marks against each interviewer. The petitioner was allotted 51 marks out of 60 marks whereas the respondent No.5 was allotted 56 marks. Solely on the basis of this viva-voce/interview, the respondent No.5 was selected vide the Select List dated 01.07.2024 impugned in the instant proceedings and the petitioner herein was put in the Waiting List. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondent authorities have changed the rules of the game after the advertisement in as much as when the interview/viva-voce test was only to be held for 20 marks, the Selection Committee on their own after the written test results had made it 60 marks thereby 20 marks each for each interviewer. It was alleged that such a procedure was adopted only to accommodate the respondent No.5. 8. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court submitted that the written test was only a screening test and thereupon on the basis of the viva-voce examination, the candidates were selected. 9. Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 supported the stand of the Gauhati High Court as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition. 10. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. It shocks and surprises this Court in the manner in which the Selection Committee changed the rules of the game after the written test as is the admitted stand in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4. The advertisement clearly stipulated the Selection Process to be of 50 marks in the written test and 20 marks for the interview. It is seen that in the written test, the petitioner herein obtained 32 marks out of 50 marks whereas the respondent No.5 only obtained 12 marks. The stand so taken by the respondents in the affidavit that the written test was a screening test, in the opinion of this Court, is contrary to the advertisement which has been issued and it seems to be an afterthought in order to accommodate the respondent No.5. Further to that, it is seen that the respondent No.5 had been selected solely on the basis of the interview which is also not permissible as per the settled principles of law. 11. Further to that, it is seen that the respondent No.5 had been selected solely on the basis of the interview which is also not permissible as per the settled principles of law. 11. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 have violated the mandate of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution in selecting the respondent No.5 to the post of the Office Peon. 12. Under such circumstances, this Court interferes with the Select List dated 01.07.2024 in so far as the post of the Office Peon in the Schedule Tribe (Hills) category. The appointment of the respondent No.5 is also set aside and quashed. 13. This Court however observes that the respondent authorities shall not recover from the respondent No.5 any amount during the period when the respondent No.5 had rendered his service in view of setting aside his appointment order. 14. The respondent authorities are directed to proceed with a fresh selection to the post of Office Peon in the category of Schedule Tribe (Hills) by following the due mandate of law.