1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.901 OF 1999. 1. Chintaman S/o Raghunath Kharat, Age 31 years, Occ.Unemployed, R/o Subhash nagar, Gaikwad Chowk, Gut No.14, Dhule, Dist. Dhule. 2. Subhash S/o Shivlal Khairnar, Age 44 years, Occ.Service, R/o Dhule Ex-Secretary of Maharashtra Rajya Magas Wargiya Vidyut Karmachari Sanghatana, Dhule, R/o Dhule, Dist.Dhule. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary (Service) General Administration Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, having its Office at Prakashgad, Bandra, Mumbai, through its Chairman. 3. Director (Personnel) M.S.E.B. Battery Ext.Building, Plot No.1, Dharavi Road, Matunga,Mumbai. 4. Superintending Engineer, M.S.E.B. 8 Sahyadri, Anandnagar, Dhule. 5. Executive Engineer (Urban), 2 M.S.E.B., Division Office, Dhule. 6. Executive Engineer, (Rural), M.S.E.B. Division Office, Dhule. 7. Executive Engineer, Dondaicha M.S.E.B. Office, Dhule. 8. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B. Shahada Division, Shahada, Dist.Nandurbar. ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.J.Godbole, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 12.08.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioners assail the Government Resolution dated 18.6.1994 and 1.9.1997, thereby increasing the percentage of reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribe category candidates and reducing the reservation of the Scheduled Caste candidates in respect of the recruitment of services by Respondent Nos.2 to 5. So also, the 3 petitioners claim that the petitioners name be considered for appointment on the post of line helper as per the selection made pursuant to the notification dated 19.3.1996. Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Government Resolution dated 18.6.1994 and 1.9.1997, by virtue of which the percentage of reservation in favour of Scheduled Tribe category candidate was increased and the percentage of reservation for Scheduled Caste category candidates was decreased in respect of employment with Respondent Nos.2 to 5 is per se illegal. According to him, the Respondent No.1 could not have changed this percentage of reservation by virtue of Government Resolution, it could only be done by act of Parliament and for that purpose has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court and the Full Bench of this Court. 2. The Apex Court in case of "K.I.Shephard and others etc. Vs. Union of India and others" AIR 1988 Supreme Court 686, held that Courts must not enter into the constitutional issues unless it is necessary. In the present case, the 4 petitioners have not arrayed as party Respondents those persons who are appointed and whose appointment would be adversely affected by any order that would be passed by us. 2. It is a trite law that no orders can be passed which would affect the rights of the persons who are not party to the proceedings. As such in view of the fact that those persons who would be adversely affected by any order that would be passed, we are not inclined to enter into the said constitutional issue and the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties. Rule accordingly discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp90199