1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders |Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | WRIT PETITION NO.9635/10 .... Shri R.V.Gore,Adv.for petitioner. Shri S.K.Tambe,AGP.for R 1 to 4. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 26/10/2010. 1] The petitioner challenges the refusal of interim order by learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the Original Applications filed by them. 2] The petitioners were working as Seasonal Spraying Workers for different period between 1996 to 2010. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to be considered for appointment as Health Workers (Male). However, in view of the age criterion of 35 years, which is determined by the respondents, they are not in a position to apply. 2 3] The learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioners have only worked on purely temporary basis that too prior to 1998. It is further contended that the age criterion is determined as 35 years therefore, petitioners are not entitled. 4] The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6215/09 alongwith other companion matters had an occasion to deal with similarly circumstanced persons. This Court vide judgment and order dated 5/11/2009 has allowed the petition. The Division Bench in the said case has clearly held that if the question of age is to be considered then Seasonal workers who have put in more service because of the age bar would be disqualified whereas new entrants who have put lesser service because of meeting the age requirements will alone be considered. This will result in inequality amongst Seasonal Spraying Workers. 5] The interim relief has been rejected by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the 3 petitioners have never worked as Seasonal Workers from 1998 onwards. From the perusal of the material placed on record by the petitioners, the finding appears to be incorrect. Most of the workers have worked even after 1998 and some of them have worked upto 2009. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal seat, in the aforesaid Writ Petition. 6] Petition is therefore allowed with the following directions : Respondents are directed to consider the applications of the petitioners alongwith other eligible candidates, without insisting on the condition of age of 35 years and if the petitioners are otherwise eligible, in accordance with rules. 7] At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order passed by this Court, grievance of the petitioners stands satisfied and the petitioners are no longer interested in 4 prosecuting the Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. He therefore, seeks liberty to withdraw the Original Application filed before the M.A.T. The Original Application No.797/2010 filed before the M.A.T. Aurangabad shall stand disposed of as withdrawn. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp9635-10