JUDGMENT : (DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.) Heard D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. M. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioners herein who are the Grade-IV employees working under the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar had assailed the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of Jarikarak/Process Server in the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar. 3. The ground on which the petitioners have approached this Court is that the respondent No.4 could not have been brought within the zone of consideration in terms with the advertisement dated 02.01.2024 inasmuch as the respondent No.4 was not a Grade-IV employee working under the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar on the date on which the advertisement was issued. 4. To ascertain the merits of the case of the petitioners, this Court would like to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant petition. 5. The respondent No.2 herein had issued an advertisement dated 02.01.2024 inviting applications from eligible Grade-IV employees working under the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar having minimum educational qualification of Graduation for filling up of vacant post of Jarikarak/Process Server in the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar. 6. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the selection board i.e. the respondent No.3 conducted a selection process and in the said selection process, found the respondent No.4 to have obtained the highest marks and as such the respondent No.4 was appointed. 7. Be that as it may, it is relevant to take note of that even in the Minutes of the selection proceedings, it has been duly reflected that the respondent No.4 was a contractual appointee. This Court has also taken note of the gradation list of Grade-IV staffs of the District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar as on 01.01.2024 wherein also, the respondent No.4 does find his name in the said list. 8. This Court has also taken note of the gradation list of Grade-IV staffs of the District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar as on 01.01.2024 wherein also, the respondent No.4 does find his name in the said list. 8. Pursuant to the said selection proceedings, vide an order dated 21.03.2024, the respondent No.4 was duly appointed as a Jarikarak/Process Server and it is under such circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court. 9. During the course of the hearing, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel has produced before this Court the records of the selection proceedings wherein it is seen that all the candidates who participated in the said selection process including the petitioners had submitted representations which were however rejected by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.4 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein the stand taken is that if the respondent No.4 was not eligible, why the respondent No.4 was allowed to participate. 10. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 11. A perusal of the said advertisement dated 02.01.2024 shows that the post of the Jarikarak/Process Server was sought to be filled up by way of promotion more particularly in view of the language used “from intending eligible Grade-IV employees working under the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Sivasagar”. 12. The fact that the respondent No.4 was not a Grade-IV employee working under the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar as on the date of the advertisement or even when the selection proceedings were conducted, is not in doubt. Considering the above, the selection of the respondent No.4 pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.01.2024 not only is in violation to the advertisement dated 02.01.2024 itself but also violates the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on one hand had taken steps to fill up the post of Jarikarak/Process Server from the in-house candidates but have taken into consideration the candidature of a candidate who is outside the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar thereby depriving the other eligible candidates who could have otherwise participated. 13. Considering the above, this Court sets aside the appointment of the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the order dated 21.03.2024. 13. Considering the above, this Court sets aside the appointment of the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the order dated 21.03.2024. Further to that, the entire selection proceedings also stands vitiated having taken into consideration a candidate who is outside the zone of consideration. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The appointment of the respondent No.4 vide the order dated 21.03.2024 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar is set aside and quashed. (ii) The entire selection proceedings held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.01.2024 is also interfered with. (iii) The District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar shall take appropriate steps for filling up the post of Jarikarak/Process Server in accordance with law. 15. The photocopy of the records which have been placed by Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.