WA 318/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. C. DAS (Goel,J.) The appellant is aggrieved by rejection of prayer for stay of the process of sel ection of 80 Assistant Audit Officers as per Assam Local Fund Audit Service (Ame ndment) Rules, 1997. By the advertisement dated 9.7.2010, process of selection was commenced in which 27000 candidates appeared. The appellant was one of the candidates who appeared in the written test but after appearing in the written test he filed the writ p etition alleging that the selection process was violative of the Rules inasmuch as the competitive examination was not held in consultation with the Selection B oard. An affidavit in opposition was filed by the Director of Audit (Local Fund) oppos ing the writ petition and stating that the selection process was being conducted as per Rules. Conduct of the written exam was outsourced to the Assam Institute of Management. The said Institute is to conduct the written test and also to as sist the Selection Board duly constituted under the Rules. The interview will be conducted by the Selection Board and thereafter appointment will be made by the appointing authority. After consideration of the rival submissions, learned Single Judge held that no case was made out for staying the selection process, particularly when the appel lant himself appeared in the examination and was not successful and also having regard to the fact that interview was going to be concluded. We have heard Mr. N. N. Karmakar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing on behalf of the r espondents. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the recruitment process could com mence only in consultation with the Selection Board and decision to outsource wr itten examination could not be taken without consulting the Selection Board. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Selection Board was constituted a fter the conduct of the written examination and even though decision to outsourc e the written exam was taken prior to constitution of Selection Board, the purpo se of Selection Board was only to conduct interview and having regard to that ob ject in mind, the requirement of consultation with the Selection Board even for outsourcing the written exam could not be held to be mandatory. After due consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that even t hough, as per literal terms of the rule, appointing authority is required to con sult the Selection Board for conducting the competitive examination which also i ncludes holding of written test, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, absence of consultation with the Selection Board prior to hol ding of written test cannot be held to have caused any prejudice to the appellan t. Admittedly, the appellant participated in the process and was unsuccessful. 2 7000 candidates have already appeared in the examination. 80 candidates are to b e selected. Interview has already been completed. In these circumstances, the vi ew taken by the learned Single Judge in declining to stay the selection process does not call for interference. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.