A.K. Goel, CJ.;— 1. This petition seeks quashing of Rules 6 and 16 of the Assam Transport Services Rules, 2003 (the Rules). 2. Case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of advertisement dated 30.07.2005 they applied for the post of Enforcement Checkers in the Transport Department. They were duly qualified for the posts and appeared in the written test but they were not selected. They learnt that no consultation was held with the Public Service Commission as mandated under Article 320(3) of the Constitution. The posts were also not covered by the Schedule to the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 (the Regulations) whereby certain posts were excluded from the requirement of consultation in terms of proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution. The rules were void as they did not contemplate consultation with the Commission. Consequently, the process of appointments was void and was liable to be cancelled. 3. Reply has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Transport, Government of Assam, stating that appointing authority being the Commissioner, the requirement of consultation was not applicable in view of Rule 3 of the Regulations. The petitioner having completed and failed in the examination was estopped from challenging the same after the completion of selection process. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rules and the selection process were in violation of Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution. The requirement of consultation with the Commission was mandatory in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 1987 [para 7]; The State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad and others, AIR 1967 SC 903 [paras 5, 6 and 11]; Dinkar Anna Patel and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1999 SC 152 [para 18]; R. Hariharan and others v. K. Balachandran Nair and others, (2000)7 SCC 399 [paras 6 and 7] and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi(3) and others, (2006)4 SCC 1 [paras 3 and 4]. He submitted that even after participation the petitioner was not estopped from challenging the selection process as there could be no estoppel against law in view of law laid down in Matilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1979 SC 621 . 6. He submitted that even after participation the petitioner was not estopped from challenging the selection process as there could be no estoppel against law in view of law laid down in Matilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1979 SC 621 . 6. Learned Advocate General Assam opposed the above submissions and submitted that requirement under Article 320(3)(a) was not mandatory. In any case, under Regulation 3 of the Regulations, requirement of consultation stood expressly excluded in respect of posts for which the appointing authority was not the Governor. For the post in question, the appointing authority was the Commissioner of Transport under Rule 2(a) of the Rules. He submitted that the petitioner having participated in the selection process was estopped from challenging the same in view of law laid down in Madan Lal and others v. State of J & K and others, (1995)3 SCC 486 [para 9]. 7. The question for consideration is whether the Rules in question can be held to be violative of Article 320(3) of the Constitution and on that ground selection process can be quashed. In our view, the answer has to be in the negative. 8. Reference may be made to the Rules in question. “2. In these rules unless the context otherwise requires. (a) “Appointing Authority” means the Governor of Assam in respect of the Class I and Class II Gazetted cadres and the Commissioner of Transport in respect of Class III non-Gazetted cadres of the service.” “6.(1) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rules (2)(a), 4(a), 5(a) and (6) of rule 5, direct recruitment to the service shall be made on the basis of recommendation made by the Commissioner/Board, as the case may be, in accordance with the procedure hereinafter provided.” “16. (1) Subject to the provision of rule 15 and sub-rule of this rule appointment under rule 6 shall be made by the Appointing Authority in accordance with the order of preference as determined in the list referred to in clause (d) of rule 6.” 9. Regulation 3 of the Regulations is as under : “3. (1) Subject to the provision of rule 15 and sub-rule of this rule appointment under rule 6 shall be made by the Appointing Authority in accordance with the order of preference as determined in the list referred to in clause (d) of rule 6.” 9. Regulation 3 of the Regulations is as under : “3. It shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted in matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and post or the suitability of the candidates for such appointments, in the following cases, namely – (a) When an appointment is to be made by an authority other than the Governor or by the Governor to a post on a pay scale the maximum of which is less than “Rupees Eleven hundred and Sixty six per month and in respect of post as shown in the Schedule although the maximum of the pay scale of these posts exceed “Rupees Eleven hundred and Sixty six”, where direct recruitment can be made.” 10. Article 320(3) of the Constitution is as under : “320. Functions of Public Service Commissions.--- (3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be considered -- (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; …………….. Provided that the President as respect the all-India services and also as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and the Governor, as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted.” 11. A perusal of regulation 3 of the Regulations read with proviso to Article 320(3)(a) clearly shows that the requirement of consultation with the Public Service Commissioner is not applicable if the appointing authority is not the Governor. In the present case, Rule 2(a) of the Rules provides that appointing authority for class III services is the Commissioner. Thus, the mandate of Article 320(3)(a) is not applicable in view of Regulation 3 read with proviso to Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution. 12. In these circumstances, the Rules in question cannot be held to he unconstitutional or void. In the present case, Rule 2(a) of the Rules provides that appointing authority for class III services is the Commissioner. Thus, the mandate of Article 320(3)(a) is not applicable in view of Regulation 3 read with proviso to Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution. 12. In these circumstances, the Rules in question cannot be held to he unconstitutional or void. This being the clear position, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the petitioner is estopped from challenging the Rule after having participated in the selection process or whether provision for recommendation by the Public Service Commission itself meets the requirement of consultation or whether requirement of Article 320(3)(a) is mandatory. 13. As a result of above discussion, the impugned Rules and the selection process cannot be declared to be void. No other point having been raised, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same shall stand dismissed. _____________