AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
it was admitted by the University as also by Respondent No. 5 that at no point of (sic) the inter se seniority between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 was decided prior to the issuance of the notification dated 27.3.1990 (annexure-(sic)).
The Petitioner claims that he is senior to Respondent No. 5 because he was promoted as University Professor earlier that he was appointed as lecture earlier than the Petitioner and such he must be (sic) to be (sic) to the Petitioner was collected and it was shown as 1985.
(sic) the question on (sic) was never determined by giving notice to the persons which way be adversary affected particularly in this case in view of the opinion that the Vice-Chancellor or the University should decide the inter se sonority of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 after giving notice to both of them of being heard. We hope that since it is an internal matter of the University and all the records are available in the office of the University there should not be any (sic) with the Vice Chancellor to dispose or the matter within six week from the date of (sic) of a copy or this order. It is ordered that matter shall be disposed of within that (sic).
If the Vice-Chancellor finds that the Petitioner was senior to Respondent No. 5, he shall forthwith issue notification canceling annexure-7.
This application is disposed of.