(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3694 OF 1997 1. Satish Dadarao Gajkeshwar, Aged : 26 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad. 2. Deelip s/o. Dadarao Gajkeshwar, Aged : 62 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. as above. 3. A. Rahim Khan s/o. A.R. Khan, Aged : 22 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Jahagirdar Colony, near Railway Station, Aurangabad. 4. Sunil Ramchandra Jadhav, Aged : 25 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Bhoiwada, Near Central Bus Stand, Aurangabad. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (through its Managing Director), Central Office, Wahtuk Bhavan, Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Mumbai - 8. (2) 3. The Deputy General Manager (P. & I.R.), Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, R/o. as above. 4. The Regional Manager, Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad. 5. Pandharinath s/o. Pundlik Sapkal, Aged : Major, Occupation : Conductor, S.T. Depot, Sillod, District : Aurangabad. 6. Santosh Balakdas Bairagi, Aged : Major, Occupation : Conductor, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. U.R. Awate, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.B. Talekar and Mr. V.B. Wagh, Advocates, for the petitioners. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, Advocate, for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. ........................ (3) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order 3/4th May 1998, issued by the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad, thereby appointing 166 candidates as Conductors in Aurangabad Division, including respondent nos.5 and 6. The petitioners have also sought a direction to the respondents, to provide reservation of 10 % of the total posts, to the children of the employees of the Corporation, who have either retired or likely to retire. 2. Since the petition pertains to the selection process of Conductors conducted in the year 1996, we find, that any interference, at this stage, would adversely affect large number of candidates who have been selected. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere at this stage. In so far as second prayer is concerned, as to whether reservation in the employment of the Corporation, to the children of the employees working in the Corporation, should be provided, or not, is a matter of policy. It is prerogative of the State to frame a (4) policy in a particular manner, in that behalf. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we cannot direct the State to formulate policy in a particular manner. In that view of the matter, the said relief also cannot be granted. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3694