FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8070 OF 2011 "Madhav Vyanketrao Kadam and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." with WRIT PETITION NO. 8072 OF 2011 “Sheshrao Raghunath Bhalge and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. Vishwajeet R. Jain, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.D. Rakh, AGP for respondent No.1,3,4 and 5. Mr. P.R. Tandale, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 22ND NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2] Facts in the present petitions are identical with the facts in W.P. No. 6215 of 2009, with companion matters decided on 5.11.2009, wherein, a Division Bench of this court has held that if the question of age is to be considered, then, seasonal workers, who have put in many years of service and who have crossed the age limit, should be permitted to participate in the selection process, treating them as in-service candidates. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8070 OF 2011 "Madhav Vyanketrao Kadam and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." with WRIT PETITION NO. 8072 OF 2011 “Sheshrao Raghunath Bhalge and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] In that view of the matter, writ petitions are allowed by directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners, eligible for selection as “Health Worker” by not insisting upon the upper age limit criteria, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible. Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-