Case: Jagannath S/O Anna Khakare &amp; Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Energy Department &amp; Others

Court has reiterated the principle that the Company registered under the Companies Act is a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. The property of the Company is not the property of the shareholders, but a shareholder has merely an interest in the Company arising under its Articles of Association, measured by a sum of money for the purpose of liability and by a share in the profit.16. It has also been urged by the Respondents that the policy prescribed under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of reservation is only an enabling provision and it is for the respective State either to enact a legislation or issue executive instructions providing reservation. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of Dr.GulshanPrakash & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, reported in AIR 2010 SC 288 , for the same purpose. It is the contention of Respondents that the Corporation has provided for 5% seats to project affected persons category. The policy of the State Government prescribing higher age limit is not binding on the Company and the Company can formulate its own resolutions in consonance with its Articles of Association.17. It has also been urged that an identical challenge raised to the very advertisement has been turned down by this Court and as such, these writ petitions need not be entertained.18. Before turning to the judgment concerning challenge to the advertisement no.1/2012, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment in the matter of Mukund s/o Uttamrao Somde Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (Writ Petition No.138 of 2010, decided by Division Bench of this Court on 22.01.2010). The advertisement issued by the Respondent-Company bearing no. 1/2009 dated 01.12.2009 prescribing upper age limit of 30 years for open category candidates to fill up the post of Junior Operator, was the subject matter of challenge in the petition. It was the contention of the petitioners therein that the Respondent-Company is obliged to retain maximum age limit of 33 years. In paragraph no.7 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed thus:7. Having considered the rival submissions, we find merits in the stand taken by the Respondent No.2 that the condition imposed in the advertisement of upper age limit of 30 years while inviting the applications for the concerned posts, is a policy decision of the Respondent No. 2 and the same cannot be lightly interfered with. The scope of judicial review to interfere with the policy matter and in particular, relating to the necessary qualification mentioned therein, would be possible only if the said policy decision was shown to be in violation with some statutory or constitutional provision. No statutory provision has been brought to our notice, which would persuade us to take the view that the policy decision of the Respondent No.2 to restrict upper age limit to 30 years, is in breach of such statutory provision.It has also been observed in the judgment that prospective applicants cannot entertain expectation that for all the times to come, the same selection norms will prevail.19. In Writ Petition No.139 of 2010, decided by the Division Bench at Bombay on 22.01.2010, challenge raised by the petitioners therein in respect of prescribing upper age limit of 30 years by the Company in respect of open category candidates to fill the posts of Junior Operator or Technician was a matter of consideration and the Court, for the reasons recorded in the judgment, has turned down the challenge.20. In Writ Petition No.5741/2012, decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.09.2012 (Sharad Tukaram Bhise Vs. State of Maharashtra & another), challenge was raised to the advertisement no.1/2012, which is the very advertisement under challenge in the instant group of petitions. The challenge is confined to the age relaxation so far as candidates belonging to backward class is concerned and it was contended that it should be in tune with age limit prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 17.08.2004 issued by the State Government. The Division Bench, placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of Mukund s/o Uttamrao Somde Vs. State of Maharashtra & others in W.P. No. 138/2010, has turned down the challenge and dismissed the petition. It has been observed in the judgment that, the Government Resolution is only recommendatory and cannot be treated to be binding on the Respondent-Company. The selection process, which has been notified by the Company, will have to be proceeded as per the policy decision of the Company, which has been taken at the highest level by the Board of Directors.21. In another writ petition, taking exception to the very advertisement, decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Bombay, in the matter of Sandip Santaji Hade Vs. Chief Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd. (Writ Petition No.6072 of 2012, decided on 2012), challenge raised to the very advertisement i.e. No.1/2012 on the ground of failure to provide age relaxation in consonance with Government Resolution dated 03.02.2007, applicable to project affected persons category, has been turned down by the Division Bench following decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Sharad Tukaram Bhise.22. It is to be noted that since the Division Bench at Bombay has turned down the challenge raised to the very advertisement, the instant petitions, taking exception to the advertisement on the identical grounds, need not be entertained. Since the Division Bench at Bombay has taken a view that the Government Resolution is only recommendatory in nature and cannot be treated as binding on Respondent No.2, instant petitions raising identical challenge do not deserve consideration. It has also to be taken note of that since policy prescribed by the Government under the Resolution has not been adopted by the Respondent-Company nor there is any statutory provision pointed out showing binding nature of the directives, the contentions raised by the petitioners in the group of instant petitions do not deserve acceptance.23. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that these writ petitions are devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]20. In Writ Petition No.5741/2012, decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.09.2012 (Sharad Tukaram Bhise Vs. State of Maharashtraanother), challenge was raised to the advertisement no.1/2012, which is the very advertisement under challenge in the instant group of petitions. The challenge is confined to the age relaxation so far as candidates belonging to backward class is concerned and it was contended that it should be in tune with age limit prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 17.08.2004 issued by the State Government. The Division Bench, placing reliance on the judgment in the matter of Mukund s/o Uttamrao Somde Vs. State of Maharashtraothers in W.P. No. 138/2010, has turned down the challenge and dismissed the petition. It has been observed in the judgment that, the Government Resolution is only recommendatory and cannot be treated to be binding on theThe selection process, which has been notified by the Company, will have to be proceeded as per the policy decision of the Company, which has been taken at the highest level by the Board of Directors.21. In another writ petition, taking exception to the very advertisement, decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Bombay, in the matter of Sandip Santaji Hade Vs. Chief Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd. (Writ Petition No.6072 of 2012, decided on 2012), challenge raised to the very advertisement i.e. No.1/2012 on the ground of failure to provide age relaxation in consonance with Government Resolution dated 03.02.2007, applicable to project affected persons category, has been turned down by the Division Bench following decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Sharad Tukaram Bhise.22. It is to be noted that since the Division Bench at Bombay has turned down the challenge raised to the very advertisement, the instant petitions, taking exception to the advertisement on the identical grounds, need not be entertained. Since the Division Bench at Bombay has taken a view that the Government Resolution is only recommendatory in nature and cannot be treated as binding on Respondent No.2, instant petitions raising identical challenge do not deserve consideration. It has also to be taken note of that since policy prescribed by the Government under the Resolution has not been adopted by thenor there is any statutory provision pointed out showing binding nature of the directives, the contentions raised by the petitioners in the group of instant petitions do not deserve acceptance.23. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that these writ petitions are devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed.