IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4745 of 2006 Rama Shankar Chaudhary, son of late Prabhu Chaudhary, Resident of Belaur, P.O. Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur, Assistant S.P. College, Arra. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arra, through its Registrar. 2. The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arra. 3. The Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arra. 4. The Principal, S.B. College, Arra. 5. Mr. Dharnaj Thakur, Son of not known to the petitioner, Assistant, S.B. College, Arra. -------- Respondents ----------- 5 22.6.2011 Having heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 as also counsel for the official respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grievance of the petitioner, as against the alleged out of turn promotion of the respondent no.5, in the first instance ought to have been decided by the Vice Chancellor of the University, who was the author of the order of promotion of the respondentno.5. It has to be noted that there is no combined seniority list published by the University as with regard to Class-III employees of the college, in question, and therefore, the petitioner may have a genuine grievance that when he and the respondent no.5 were appointed by the governing body of the affiliated college prior to its being made constituent on the same day, the respondent no.5 could not have steal march over the petitioner. At the same time, this Court would also find that the respondent no.5 has taken 2 a plea that after being appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk along with the petitioner on the same day, the Respondent no. 5, on account of his being a Graduate, was promoted by the affiliated college on the post of Upper Division Clerk and therefore he has to be reckoned senior to the petitioner . While this Court would not be in a position to adjudicate the claim of inter-se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent no.5, it is always expected of the Vice Chancellor of the University that he would look into different aspects of the alleged illegality in the promotion of the respondent no.5 in preference to the petitioner for which the petitioner has already filed a detailed representation vide Annexure-7 to the writ application. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Registrar of the University to ensure that the representation filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-7 should be disposed of by the Vice Chancellor at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner may also file a copy of this order along with the copy of his earlier representation as contained in Annexure-7 to this writ application and the period of aforesaid six months shall commence from the date of filing of a copy of the present order by the petitioner before the Registrar of the University. 3 The Vice Chancellor, being the competent authority, before taking his final decision on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, would afford opportunity of personal hearing both to the petitioner as also to the respondent no.5. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)