IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5295 of 2009 BIJENDRA RAVIDAS Versus THE V.C.,RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY & ORS. ----------- 2. 24.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In view of the nature of the order where the interest of respondent no. 6, is to be adequately protected, and he shall be duly heard before any final orders are passed, this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to him at this stage. A tentative gradation list was published on 27.1.2006 in which the petitioner was shown senior to Respondent no. 6. Respondent no. 6 filed written objection whreafter the final seniority list was published on 31.3.2008 in which the petitioner was again shown senior to respondent no. 6. The issue of seniority between them thus became final. Any error in the seniority list could be corrected administratively but if it was to be done on a representation of respondent no. 6, the petitioner was required to be noticed and heard. That procedure has not been followed. The authority then proceeded to discard the final seniority list dated 31.3.2008 and issued another list on 15.11.2008 showing the petitioner as junior to respondent no. 6. This is stated to be on a representation by respondent no. 6. It has been specifically pleaded in Paragraph 25 of the writ application that before discarding the finalized seniority list dated 31.3.2008 at the behest of respondent no. 6, no notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the final seniority list be not revised. The tentative gradation list is on record. The objection of - 2 - respondent no. 6 at Annexure-6 is on record. It states that he was filing his objection to the tentative gradation list Annexure-7 is the final gradation list on 31.3.2008 which states in uncertain terms that it was a final gradation list. The petitioner is stated to have filed a representation. This Court considers the representation as an objection of the petitioner and directs the respondent University to decide the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and respondent no. 6 both. Till such time the fresh seniority list dated 15.11.2008 shall remain in abeyance and respondents shall act in accordance with the seniority list dated 31.3.2008 with all its consequences. It is for the University to decide how expeditiously it would like to act in the matter since the order is being passed in presence of the counsel for the University and the University need not await the production of a copy of the present order by the petitioner. This Court considers it prudent to pass the order of the present nature as otherwise it would have been required to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 15.11.2008 at Annexure-9, issue notice to respondent no. 6 and allow the University to file a counter affidavit thereafter the matter would have come up for admission years later when this Court today is hearing writ application of year 2001 and it is only under the new system introduced that fresh cases filed are getting listed at the top for the first hearing only.’ The writ application stands disposed off with the aforesaid observation. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)