WA 236/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appell ant. Also heard Ms. B Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the official responde nts. Mr. S S Day appears on behalf of the private respondent. 2. The appellant challenges the judgment dated 1.7.2010 in W P (C) No.5163/ 2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby the impugned decision (dated 19.11.2009) cancelling the dictation test held on 28.10.2009 for selection to th e post of Grade III Stenographer (Assamese) was interfered with and the official respondents were directed to complete the selection on the basis of the dictati on test conducted on 28.10.2009. 3. The cancellation of the dictation test was ordered on the appellant’s co mplaint wherein it was alleged that while the dictation test was given by the Di rector, the appellant noticed Ratul Bhagabati (writ petitioner) standing near th e Director and that this candidate subsequently appeared in the viva-voce examin ation, without participating in the dictation (Stenography) test. The further co mplaint of the appellant was that the shorthand examination should be conducted by a person with knowledge of Stenography. 4. The Government took the impugned decision to abandon the earlier test an d subject the candidates to a fresh dictation test after the appellant’s complai nt of anomalies in the dictation test was considered. 5. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had participated in th e short hand test and the other segments of the recruitment process and the comp laint made by the appellant was without any basis. Accordingly the Government’s decision to cancel the shorthand test to be reconducted by an expert in Stenogra phy was held to be unwarranted. Consequential direction was then issued to the o fficial respondents to complete the selection on the basis of the first process. 6. Aggrieved, the appellant files this appeal where he contends that since the dictation test was cancelled to ensure transparency in the selection process the same should not be reviewed by the Court although the appellant concedes th at dictation is not required to be given by a Stenography expert. Yet Mr. Goswam i submits that involvement of an expert would, enhance the credibility of the re cruitment test. The learned senior counsel also points out that the Director of Land Records was not made a member of the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 5(c) of the provisions of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class III and Class IV posts) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 1997 Rules’) and therefore the dictation test conducted by the said officer has vitia ted the selection. 7. We find that the composition of the Selection Committee constituted by t he notification dated 27.10.2009 is in conformity of Rule 5(c) of the 1997 Rules . It is also seen that the 1997 Rules do not obligate the conduct of a shorthand test either by an expert or in presence of an expert. Therefore the learned Sin gle Judge was correct in concluding that the test held on 28.10.2010 where dicta tion was given by the Director of Land Records and Surveys requires no interfere nce since the Committee could co-opt an expert as may be required. 8. In his complaint, the appellant alleged that because the dictation test was given by the Director, the test stand vitiated and the said test ought to ha ve been conducted by a person having knowledge of Stenography. But the 1997 Rule s does not specify any particular person to give the dictation. The Rules too do es not prescribe any requirement to have an expert in Stenography to conduct the dictation. Accordingly we see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge on this aspect of the appellant’s complaint. 9. Furthermore, the writ petitioner participated in the dictation test and the appellant’s complaint that the candidate did not take part in that segment o f the test was found to be untrue by the learned Court. 10. We may also note that the impugned recruitment process was preceded by a n advertisement in a leading newspaper whereafter the merits of the candidates w ere evaluated through a selection test. The appellant also participated in the t est but because of his complaint, a fresh test was ordered. Having found that th e allegations in the appellant’s complaint are not tenable in law or on facts, w e feel that the learned Single Judge rightfully interfered with the decision to go for a fresh selection. 11. On an overall consideration of the rival contentions we see no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No cost.