- (1.) Heard Shri Abhinav Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 and learned counsel for the opposite party No.4.
(2.) Since, learned counsel for the petitioner has proposed to remit the matter to the Chancellor of the University for taking decision on the representation, at this stage, we feel appropriate to dispense with notices to be issued to opposite parties No. 5 & 6. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to dispose of petitioner's reference under Section 68 of the State University Act, 1973 which is pending for consideration with the Chancellor since March, 2016.
(3.) We are informed that the pleadings before the Chancellor have already been completed but decision is yet to be taken in the matter, therefore, at this stage, we feel it appropriate to provide that before taking any final decision, the notices should also be issued to the opposite parties No. 5, 6 & 7 so that decision may be taken after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties as the dispute appears to be a dispute of inter se seniority on the post of Associate Professor.;