JUDGMENT - P.S. BRAHME, J.:---Both these petitions are disposed by this common judgment as in both the petitions challenge is to the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer by the respondent, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. 2. The facts which are necessary to decide the controversy involved in these petitions are stated as under: The respondent, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, completely owned by the State of Maharashtra. Initially the State of Maharashtra established Forest Development Board in 1969 as a major step to convert large number of blocks of mixed forest into valuable teak forests. All the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2503 of 1986 started their service in the Forest Development Board, in that, the petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 were erstwhile retrenched employees of the State of Maharashtra and as such they were accommodated as Junior Accountants in the Forest Development Board. Petitioners No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were appointed as direct recruits to the post of Junior Accountants on the basis of advertisement issued. The rest of the petitioners i.e. petitioners No. 8 to 12 were appointed as Junior Clerks in the Forest Development Board itself and after passing departmental examination they were promoted to the post of Junior Accountant. The Forest Development Board which was a part and parcel of State of Maharashtra merged with the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited w.e.f. 25-10-1974, as such when the petition was filed the petitioners were the employees of respondent Corporation working as Junior Accountants. 3. The respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in Writ Petition No. 2503 of 1986 who were originally serving with the Government of Maharashtra and who were transferred to the Forest Development Board were not absorbed in the respondent No. 1, the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra. However, they were treated to be on deputation in the Corporation. These respondents continued to be in the employment of the Corporation as on deputation. The petitioners who were working as Junior Accountants were absorbed as Accounts Assistants in the same pay scale. 4. That separate service rules came into existence for the first time on 16-9-1974. However, they were treated to be on deputation in the Corporation. These respondents continued to be in the employment of the Corporation as on deputation. The petitioners who were working as Junior Accountants were absorbed as Accounts Assistants in the same pay scale. 4. That separate service rules came into existence for the first time on 16-9-1974. At that time the next promotion of the Accounts Assistant was to be of the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer which post was to be filled in either by nomination or by promotion from the Accounts Assistants of the Corporation on seniority-cum-merit basis. As such the petitioners were eligible and fit to be promoted to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer on seniority-cum-merit basis. However, all the posts of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer were filled in by way of deputation and only direct recruitments were made in the year 1977. A separate promotional cadre was created in the nomenclature of the Accounts Assistants in selection grade on 27-1-1978. The petitioners were given selection grade by order dated 23-11-1981. 5. Later on by the resolution dated 28-6-1982 a separate cadre for the Accounts Assistants was approved. By the resolution dated 3-11-1983 passed by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, respondent Nos. 3 and 9 came to be absorbed. Thereafter, by order dated 3-2-1984, respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were given selection grade as they had completed more than eight years of service from the date of their deputation. In effect all these persons were put in the selection grade with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 3-11-1983, on the date on which they were absorbed in Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited. As a matter of fact as per the existing rules when the petitioners had came in the selection grade on 23-11-1981, their service in that cadre for 2 years had made them eligible for the promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer and respondent No. 3 and 9 were that time not eligible for the promotion as they were absorbed in the Corporation and were given selection grade w.e.f. 3-11-1983. 6. In the meeting dated 3-12-1985 the Board of Directors of the Corporation framed the rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. The nomenclature of selection grade Accounts Assistants was changed to Accountant. 6. In the meeting dated 3-12-1985 the Board of Directors of the Corporation framed the rules for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. The nomenclature of selection grade Accounts Assistants was changed to Accountant. So all the petitioners and respondents No. 3 to 9 were brought in the cadre of Accountant. The Rules further provided for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer from the Accountants. For that, it was provided that such Accountant will be required to pass departmental examination for being promoted as Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. These rules for promotional examination framed by the Corporation in pursuance of the minutes of the meeting dated 3-12-1985 are annexed to the petition as Annexure P-16-A. The Rule 6-D reads as under: "6-D The Accountant will be required to pass the departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer." 7. According to the petitioners the Accountant who does not pass this promotional examination shall not be eligible for the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. Rule 5 of the Rules also provided that an Accountant whether absorbed or promoted shall be exempted from passing this examination, if he has attained the age of 45 years on the appointed day or attains that age on the date thereafter. It is the contention of the petitioners that under these Rules for the first time the condition of promotional examination was introduced and exemption from passing examination for the employees who have attained the age of 45 years being granted, great injustice was caused to the petitioners, in as much as the respondents No. 3 to 9 who are in fact juniors to the petitioners would automatically get promotion to that post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer as they had attained age of 45 years. But petitioners were deprived of the promotion as they were then less than 45 years of age and it was mandatory for the petitioners to pass the promotional examination. In such circumstances the persons like respondents Nos. 3 to 9 were to get the promotion automatically because of exemption as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules, as all of them had completed 45 years of age. In such circumstances the persons like respondents Nos. 3 to 9 were to get the promotion automatically because of exemption as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules, as all of them had completed 45 years of age. It is in this context that the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 6-D. It is the contention of the petitioners that the rules are being changed so as to put the petitioners to disadvantage vis a vis respondent Nos. 3 to 9. Thereby discriminatory treatment is meted out to the petitioners and more particularly because of the exemption clause introduced in the Rules. That the completion of age of 45 years for getting exemption cannot be an intelligible criteria and has no nexus with the rule for the purpose of promotion. That the completion of 45 years of age is totally irrelevant to the matters of promotion which necessarily depends upon the seniority or the merits of the incumbent. The attaining of the age of 45 years for that purposes is thus wholly irrelevant with the purpose of examination, which has to provide competent officers in service. Ordinarily, such exemption is always coupled with the completion of particular number of years in the service which can provide an intelligible rational that because of the experience of particular number of years a person can be exempted. However, completion of age irrespective of the number of years of service cannot pass the test of reasonableness. The petitioners therefore have challenged the rules in so far as they provide for promotional examination as also the resolution passed by the Board of Directors dated 3-12-1985 to that effect. Petitioners also sought direction to the respondent-Corporation to promote the petitioners to the post of A.P. and A.O. The petitioners also sought stay to the operation and effect of the resolution dated 3-12-1985 as also stay to the holding of the examination which was scheduled to be held on 8-11-1986. 8. This Court on 13-9-1988 issued Rule. No stay was granted as sought for by the petitioners. But this Court passed order that all the promotions on the basis of examination will be subject to the result of the petition. 9. Respondents filed return in this petition. Respondent Corporation also filed affidavit on 1-4-2002 pointing out subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petition. No stay was granted as sought for by the petitioners. But this Court passed order that all the promotions on the basis of examination will be subject to the result of the petition. 9. Respondents filed return in this petition. Respondent Corporation also filed affidavit on 1-4-2002 pointing out subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioners No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 were promoted on 13-4-1990, while petitioner No. 7, 8 and 12 were promoted on 8-5-1990. The petitioner Nos. 5 and 11 are not promoted, but they have been given the pay scale of the promotional post w.e.f. 1-10-1994; they having completed 12 years in the post. The petitioner No. 1 was not promoted, but he has been given pay scale of promotional post w.e.f. 1-4-1996. The petitioner No. 1 has already retired from service on 28-12-2001. The petitioner No. 11 is due for retirement on 30-9-2002. It is further brought to the notice of the Court that all the respondents No. 3 to 9 have retired during the pendency of the present petition. 10. In Writ Petition No. 1537/1990 two petitioners who were working in the Corporation as Accountants have challenged the promotions of respondents No. 3 to 9 to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. These respondents are petitioners No. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 in the Writ Petition No. 2503/1986. As stated earlier, these respondents No. 3 to 9 were promoted on 13-4-1990 in pursuance of the decision taken by the committee constituted consequent upon the resolution passed in the Board meeting of the Corporation dated 3-12-1985. The Corporation which is respondent No. 2 in this petition in its meeting held on 3-12-1985 had framed Rules for promotion and had prescribed promotional examination where under the passing of the examination is a must for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. It is the contention of the petitioners that under the Rules exemption was granted only to the employees who have attained the age of 45 years for passing the promotional examination. It is the contention of the petitioners that under the Rules exemption was granted only to the employees who have attained the age of 45 years for passing the promotional examination. It is further contended that as none of the respondents No. 3 to 9 has appeared and passed the promotional examination and none has attained the age of 45 years, they were not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer and therefore, their promotion was illegal. 11. It is contended that the decision taken in the meeting dated 7-2-1990 on the basis of the meeting dated 3-12-1985 granting exemption from passing examination is contrary to the Rules and amounts to colourable exercise of powers, if not vested in the committee or the Managing Director. At any rate the committee has no power to take a decision inconsistent and violative to the Rules already framed. The powers vested to committee in subject 14 of the Resolution dated 3-12-1985 are restricted to General Administration and there is no mention of considering any promotion to any post. No powers are vested in the committee to act in any manner which amounts to violation of Rules which are framed at subject matter 25 of the same meeting. The extract containing the subject matter No. 14 of the meeting dated 3-12-1985 is annexed to the petition vide Annexure: 21. It is the contention of the petitioner that by the said decision the Corporation has attempted to equate departmental examination for clerks to that with prescribed promotional examination for accountants. The decision of an executive character cannot have force to repeal the Rules. In the letter dated 27-9-1990 by the Managing Director to the Regional Manager, there is no exemption granted for appearance to the prescribed promotional examination. The mention is about only the departmental examination which is initially every employee has to pass. It is the contention of the petitioners that the promotional examination termed as the departmental examination of accounts was first time held in the month of September, 1988 and the result of the said promotional examination was communicated by letter dated 29-10-1988 and petitioners have been declared as passed in that examination. However, none of the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 appeared in the examination held. Therefore, petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. However, none of the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 appeared in the examination held. Therefore, petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. That is how these two petitioners have sought direction to the Corporation respondent No. 2 to consider their case for the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer w.e.f. 13-4-1990. They also sought for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13-4-1990 except for Shri Fating (qualified) and order dated 8-6-1990 except for Shri S.S. Uware whereunder respondent No. 3 to 9 came to be promoted. 12. The respondents No. 2 Corporation has controverted the claim of the petitioners in its written submission filed in the writ petition which later on came to be adopted as return. In addition to that respondent Corporation filed additional submissions in view of certain subsequent developments during the pendency of the petition. It is stated by respondent that the cadre of Selection Grade Accounts Office Assistant was cancelled in the 50th meeting of the Board dated 3-12-1985 and a new cadre of "Accountant" was created some Accounts Assistants of the Forest Department in working on deputation with Corporation continuously for a long period had given their willingness for absorption in the Corporation and accordingly the Corporation in its 30th meeting dated 3-1-1981 had framed terms and conditions for absorption of such employees and ultimately the said employees were absorbed in the service. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 Corporation in its 50th meeting held on 3-12-1985 had framed Rules for promotion and had prescribed the promotional examination. In the said Rules, Accountants who have crossed the age of 45 years on the appointed day were exempted from passing examination. The said Rules incorporating condition of prescribing promotional examination as also exempting from the passing in the said examination on attaining age of 45 years have been challenged in the Writ Petition No. 2503 of 1986. In the mean time, some of the Accountants who were earlier in service of the Forest Development Board had made representation to respondent No. 2 and it was on the point of that they have already passed departmental examination in the Forest Development Board and hence they should be exempted from appearing in the examination prescribed by respondent No. 2 for promotion. Respondent No. 2 in its Board meeting dated 3-12-1985 constituted a committee consisting of Secretary Revenue and Forest Department, Chief Conservator of Forest and Managing Director to solve the problems regarding establishment. Copy of the Resolution is at Annexure: R-I to the reply. By the said resolution it was further decided that the decision of the said committee should be followed by the Managing Director. The said committee in its meeting dated 7-2-1990 considered representation of the employees, who have passed departmental examination and it was decided by the said committee that such employees should be given exemption from appearing for the examination prescribed by the respondent No. 2 Corporation. (Copy of the said decision of the committee dated 7-2-1990 is at Annexure R-II). It is contended that in view of the said decision of the committee and the resolution dated 3-12-1985 passed by the Board respondent Corporation, the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 have been given temporary officating promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. It is contended that the condition regarding passing of the examination has been relaxed by the committee taking into consideration the fact that the respondents had passed the departmental examination when they were in the Forest Development Board. 13. The committee has taken a decision and recommended that the employees who have already passed the departmental examination should not be asked to pass the departmental examination again and that they should be exempted from departmental examination. It is submitted that the sanctioned strength of the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer cadre is 22 and out of that the promotion quota is 50%. Petitioners belong to this category and at present there is no vacancy in the promotion quota as the same being fully utilised. However, in view of the State Government resolution dated 8-6-1995 petitioners No. 1 and 2 having completed 12 years in the present cadre, has been granted the pay scale of the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer by order dated 21-1-1999 w.e.f. 29-8-1998. The said benefit is being given to the employees in view of the Government Resolution taking into consideration the stagnation in the matter of promotion. 14. We have heard Mr. Sirpurkar learned Counsel for the petitioners. The said benefit is being given to the employees in view of the Government Resolution taking into consideration the stagnation in the matter of promotion. 14. We have heard Mr. Sirpurkar learned Counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that before the Rules were framed by the Corporation by resolution in the meeting 3-12-1985, criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer in respect of the employees who have been absorbed in the Corporation was on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, but the Corporation did not promote the employees on the basis of that criteria. It was by resolution dated 3-12-1985 the Rules were framed in respect of promotion and condition of passing departmental examination by Accountants was introduced. It was also provided under the Rules that the employees who have completed age of 45 years were to be exempted from passing the said examination. The consequence of this provision under the Rules was detrimental to the persons like the petitioners as petitioners were yet to attain the age of 45 years and they were required to appear and pass the departmental examination to become eligible for promotion. But so far as the respondents No. 3 to 9 were concerned, they were automatically eligible for promotion because of the exemption from passing the examination was introduced, as by then the respondents had attained the age of 45 years. Mr. Sirpurkar therefore, contended that Rules framed incorporating the conditions for passing examination and giving exemption from passing examination by employee who had attained age of 45 years are arbitrary and discriminatory in the nature and the same should be quashed and set aside. As a consequence of this i.e. the setting aside the Rules on the ground of being unconstitutional, petitioners would be entitled to promotion. Mr. Sirpurkar also submitted that having regard to the subsequent development that some of the petitioners have been given promotion later on in pursuance of the decision dated 7-2-1990 by Corporation, those petitioners should be given promotion by deemed date i.e. by 23-11-1981, the date on which the petitioners were brought in the selection grade and the rest of the petitioners should be given promotion. 15. Mr. 15. Mr. Mehadia appearing for the Corporation submitted that there was justification for the Corporation to introduce the condition of passing the examination for promotion when the Rules were framed and that the petitioners cannot claim promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer on the basis of the criteria of seniority-cum-merit, in as much as the petitioners and the respondents were simultaneously brought in the selection grade and then, in pursuance of the provisions of granting exemption from passing examination consequent upon decision taken by the committee, some of the petitioners were promoted without there being making any discrimination on the ground of seniority. That the petitioners who were promoted have accepted the promotion and as such there is no basis whatsoever for challenge to the constitutional validity of the Rules. So far as the promotion by deemed date to the petitioners is concerned, learned Counsel submitted that the same cannot be given in as much as the promotion was given to some of the petitioners and respondents for the first time on 13-4-1990. He therefore, urged that the petition merits no consideration at all, same should be dismissed. He also submitted that the petitioners having got promoted as also the pay scale of the post of promotion, the cause in the petition does not survive. 16. We also heard Mr. Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners in second writ petition. He contended that decision taken in pursuance of the decision dated 7-2-1990 taken in pursuance of the decision taken by the committee giving exemption from passing the departmental examination and promotion given to the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 was derogatory and inconsistent with the Rules framed by Corporation in the meeting dated 3-12-1985. The Corporation did not frame any Rules making relaxation in the condition of passing examination. Therefore, the decision of the committee has no sanctity of the Rules. As such the promotion given to the respondents was illegal. Mr. Parchure, also placed reliance on the decision reported in 2001(8) S.C.C. page 378 (Laxman Dunddappa Dhamnikar and another v. Management of Vishwabharat Seva Samiti and another)1. 17. Mr. Mehadia appearing for respondent-Corporation submitted that the Board of Directors of the Corporation was well within its powers to delegate its powers for making provision in respect of promotion of the employees. Parchure, also placed reliance on the decision reported in 2001(8) S.C.C. page 378 (Laxman Dunddappa Dhamnikar and another v. Management of Vishwabharat Seva Samiti and another)1. 17. Mr. Mehadia appearing for respondent-Corporation submitted that the Board of Directors of the Corporation was well within its powers to delegate its powers for making provision in respect of promotion of the employees. He pointed out with emphasis that when the Rules were framed in the meeting dated 3-12-1985, resolution came to be passed in the Board meeting and committee was constituted and the powers were delegated to the committee to take a decision and further it was decided that the decision of the said committee should be followed by the Managing Director. As such it was not incumbent upon the Corporation to frame Rules in pursuance of the decision taken by the committee granting exemption from passing the examination. He therefore, justified action on the part of the Corporation in giving promotion to respondents No. 3 to 9 in pursuance of the decision of the committee dated 7-2-1990. There is no illegality so far in giving promotion to these respondents. He also contended that the petitioners would also get promotion as and when the promotional post would fall vacant. He further submitted that the sanctioned strength of the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer cadre is 22 and out of which the promotional quota is 50% and the petitioners belong to this category and that there is at present no vacancy in the promotion quota, as the same has been fully utilised. He further pointed out that in view of the State Government resolution dated 8-6-1995, both the petitioners having completed 12 years in present cadre have been granted pay scale of the promotional post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer by order dated 21-1-1999 w.e.f. 29-8-1988. This benefit has been given to the petitioners in view of the Government Resolution taking into consideration the stagnation in the matter of promotion. He therefore, urged that nothing survives in the petition and as such same should be dismissed. 18. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the Rules framed in the Board meeting dated 3-12-1985 introducing departmental examination and granting exemption from passing examination to the employees who have attained age of 45 years are unconstitutional. 18. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the Rules framed in the Board meeting dated 3-12-1985 introducing departmental examination and granting exemption from passing examination to the employees who have attained age of 45 years are unconstitutional. We have already reproduced Rule 6-D in which the condition of passing departmental examination, came to be introduced. We have already stated that this Rule 6-D is under challenge by the petitioners. The petitioners also had grievance about the Rule incorporating exemption from passing departmental examination, to be available to the employees who have attained the age of 45 years. The contention of the petitioners is that prior to these Rules framed, the criteria for promotion to the post was that of seniority-cum-merit. It was petitioners' claim that they were senior to the respondents No. 3 to 9, but because of exemption from passing examination being brought in for the employees who have attained the age of 45 years, the respondents had gained direct advantage. Petitioners were deprived of that as petitioners were yet to attain the age of 45 years and therefore, they were required to give examination. Therefore, they contended that the Rule 6-D framed by the Corporation in the meeting held on 3-12-1985 incorporating the condition of passing examination as a pre-requisite for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer was arbitrary, discriminatory and as such it is in violation of the provisions under Constitution of India. We do not find that there is any substance in this contention of the petitioners. It is true that initially there were no Rules framed for the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer by the Corporation, but at the same time there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that the criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit basis. It is not disputed that since after the Corporation came into existence, till the Rules were framed no promotional post of Assistant Pay and Account's Officer came to be filled in by giving promotion to the employees absorbed in the Corporation. It was for the first time that the provision was made by making Rules in the meeting of the Board on 3-12-1985. It was for the first time that the provision was made by making Rules in the meeting of the Board on 3-12-1985. The Rules have been framed for the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer and the employees who have been absorbed in the Corporation which included the petitioners as well as respondents who were given the status of Accounts Assistants. The sanctioned strength of the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer cadre was 22 and out of which the promotion quota is 50%. It is admitted that the petitioners as well as the respondents belong to this category. It is further admitted that petitioners were brought in the selection grade on 23-11-1981, while the respondents were brought in the selection grade on 3-11-1983. It is further not disputed that after the decision was taken by the committee, some of the petitioners were given promotion as the condition of passing the examination was relaxed. It is also admitted that this promotion was given on 13-4-1990 for the first time. It is further pertinent to note that even after the Rules were framed on 3-12-1985, no promotion was given to the respondents taking advantage of the relaxation in the age as provided in Rule 5. It is further very significant to note that the petitioners as well as the respondents were simultaneously given selection grade. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the rules framed and particularly the Rule No. 6 by which the provision of departmental examination was introduced was arbitrary or unconstitutional, being discriminatory vis a vis petitioners. The position would have been different if in pursuance of the Rules framed immediately promotion would have been given to the respondents giving advantage to them of the relaxation in passing examination on account of their attaining the age of 45 years. That apart promotion was given to some of the petitioners. Therefore, the challenge to the Constitutional validity to the Rules framed by Corporation does not survive. 19. The next question that falls for our consideration is about the legality of the decision taken by the committee dated 7-2-1990, and consequential promotion of the petitioners who are respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in the second petition. Therefore, the challenge to the Constitutional validity to the Rules framed by Corporation does not survive. 19. The next question that falls for our consideration is about the legality of the decision taken by the committee dated 7-2-1990, and consequential promotion of the petitioners who are respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in the second petition. It is crystal clear that under the Rules framed in the meeting dated 3-12-1985 the Corporation has introduced the condition of passing examination and that an employee was to become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer only after his passing the said examination. But subsequently respondent Nos. 3 to 9 came to be promoted by order dated 13-4-1990. This promotion as consequent upon the decision taken by the committee constituted in the meeting dated 3-12-1985. The decision was taken on 7-2-1990. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that this decision is illegal as it is inconsistent with the provisions regarding promotion incorporated in the Rules framed by the Corporation. Mr. Parchure learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the decision taken by the committee was derogatory and inconsistent with the Rules in as much as under Rule 5 the provision has been made for passing the departmental examination and it was a must for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. It is further submitted that the decision taken by the committee by itself did not attain the sanctity of the rules unless it is approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation by passing resolution to that effect. We find it very difficult to accede to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. We may refer to the memorandum of association and articles of association of the Corporation and particularly to the provision contained in sub-rule ( 16 ) of Rule 91 relating to the powers of the Board and to sub-rule (19) of Rule 91 as to delegation of powers. Under these rules the Board has powers to make vary and repeal from time to time bye-laws for the regulations of the business of the company, its officers and servants. Under these rules the Board has powers to make vary and repeal from time to time bye-laws for the regulations of the business of the company, its officers and servants. As per sub-rule (19) of Rule 91 Board was empowered to delegate all or any of the powers, authorities and discretion for the time being invested in it subject to ultimate control and authority being retained by it. We may also refer to the provisions contained in section 291 of the Companies Act which authorises the Board of Directors of the Company to exercise all such powers and to do all such acts and things as the company is authorised to exercise and provided further that in exercising such powers or doing any such act or thing, the Board shall be subject to the provisions contained in that behalf in this or in any other Act or in the memorandum or articles of company or in any regulations, not inconsistent there with and duly made therein including regulations made by the company in the general meeting. So any decision taken by the Board or by the committee to whom the power to take decision has been delegated was justified, provided the decision is not inconsistent with the Rules or the Articles of the company. In the case before hand as we have pointed out on the basis of the Annexure R-I which relates to the subject No. 14 in the resolution of the Corporation in its 50th meeting dated 3-12-1985 a committee was constituted and was authorised to take a decision in respect of the questions relating to the administration of the company and it was resolved that decision of the said committee should be followed by the Managing Director. 20. Then we come to the decision taken by the committee in the meeting dated 7-2-1990 which is at Annexure: R-II, wherein the decision was taken that the employees who have already passed the departmental examination should be given exemption from appearing in the examination for the promotional post. It is no doubt true that this decision incorporates exemption from giving departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. But it is not a blanket exemption. It is for those employees who have already given departmental examination. It is no doubt true that this decision incorporates exemption from giving departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. But it is not a blanket exemption. It is for those employees who have already given departmental examination. If that is so, then it cannot be said that the decision was contrary or inconsistent with the Rules. It is also very significant to note that giving examination for the promotional post was not totally scrapped by the decision taken by the committee. In other words those employees who have not passed departmental examination were to appear for the promotional examination as contemplated under the Rules framed earlier in the meeting dated 3-12-1985. The Corporation has implemented the decision by giving the promotion to the respondents No. 3 to 9. It was not necessary that the decision was to be approved by the Board of Directors of the Company and subsequent amendment was to be made in the Rules. As stated earlier in the meeting of Board of Directors when the committee was constituted to take a decision it was made clear that the decision of the committee should be followed by the Managing Director. Therefore, as long as the decision did not violate the Rules already framed and it was not inconsistent with the Rules, the committee constituted was well within its powers delegated by the Board to take the decision and as such the decision taken by the committee does not suffer from any illegality on account of want of approval by the Board of Directors. Therefore, the decision reported in 2001(8) S.C.C. page 378 (supra) has no application so far as the present case at hand in concerned. We therefore, hold that the promotion of the respondents No. 3 to 9 by order dated 13-4-1990 on the basis of the decision of the committee dated 7-2-1990 is perfectly legal. It does not suffer from any illegality, as such challenge to the promotion of the respondent No. 3 to 9 in the petition does not sustain. It has to be turned down. 21. Consequently, the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer cannot be accepted. That apart, subsequent event brought by respondent Corporation goes to show that the claim of the petitioners for promotion does not survive. It has to be turned down. 21. Consequently, the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer cannot be accepted. That apart, subsequent event brought by respondent Corporation goes to show that the claim of the petitioners for promotion does not survive. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 having completed 12 years of service in the present cadre, in view of the State Government Resolution dated 8-6-1995, the petitioners have been granted pay scale of the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer by order dated 21-1-1999 w.e.f. 19-8-1998. This decision was taken by the Corporation taking into consideration the stagnation in the matter of promotion. It is also brought to our notice that at present there is no vacancy in the promotion quota. The petitioners belong to that category. Therefore, as and when there will be vacancy, petitioners would get the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. As stated earlier petitioners having got the scale of promotional post, right from the year 1998, petitioners have already gained monetary benefits of the promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief sought for in the petition. 22. In Writ Petition No. 2503 of 1986 admittedly petitioners No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 were promoted on 13-4-1990 while petitioners No. 7, 8 and 12 were promoted on 8-5-1990, this was consequent upon the decision taken by the committee on 7-2-1990 incorporating exemption from passing examination in respect of the employees who have already passed the departmental examination. Those petitioners who were promoted have accepted the promotion. Therefore, the petitioner's challenge to the validity of the Rules framed by the Corporation in the meeting dated 3-12-1985 and more particularly to Rule 6-D does not survive. That apart, we have found that the Rules framed by the Corporation in its Board meeting dated 3-12-1985 in which the condition of examination was introduced and also exemption from passing the promotional examination to the employees who have attained the age of 45 years, were legal and did not violate the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 23. That apart, we have found that the Rules framed by the Corporation in its Board meeting dated 3-12-1985 in which the condition of examination was introduced and also exemption from passing the promotional examination to the employees who have attained the age of 45 years, were legal and did not violate the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 23. Having regard to the subsequent development whereunder petitioners No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 and petitioners No. 7, 8, and 12 were promoted on 13-4-1990 and 8-5-1990 respectively and further the petitioners No. 1, 5 and 11 having been given the pay scale of promotional post, the claim of the petitioners for promotion does not survive. But Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are entitled to promotion by deemed date. There is no justification to give promotion to the petitioners by deemed date having regard to the facts that the petitioners and respondents No. 6, 7, and 9 were simultaneously given selection grade. The petitioners were brought in selection grade on 23-11-1981. Respondents were brought in selection grade on 3-11-1983 when they were absorbed in the Corporation. When the Rules were framed in the meeting dated 3-12-1985, petitioners and respondents were brought to the cadre of Accounts Assistant. Then inspite of having framed the rules for promotion on 3-12-1985, no promotion was given to the respondents on the basis of exemption in passing departmental examination as provided in Rule 5. (This was the exemption on the basis of relaxation of age and the employees who have attained the age of 45 years were exempted from passing departmental examination). It is further accepted position that for the first time the promotion was given on 13-4-1990 and that too to some of the petitioners taking advantage of the decision taken by the committee on 7-2-1990 giving exemption from passing examination on the ground that those petitioners have already passed departmental examination. It is also significant to note that the respondents were also given promotion for the first time on 13-4-1990. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to promotion by deemed date. 24. Thus, in the result petitioners are not entitled to any relief sought for in the petitions. It is also significant to note that the respondents were also given promotion for the first time on 13-4-1990. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to promotion by deemed date. 24. Thus, in the result petitioners are not entitled to any relief sought for in the petitions. We make it clear that because of the subsequent events as noted in earlier part of the judgment, the relief of promotion to the post of Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer does not survive. The promotion of petitioners No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 7, 8 and 12 to the post Assistant Pay and Account Officer is found to be legal. Both these petitions are dismissed with no orders as to cost. Rule issued in both these petitions is discharged in the aforesaid terms. Petitions dismissed. -----