JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---In this writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 4594 of 1985, the petitioner who is an associate professor of Horticulture in College of Agriculture at Pune, is praying for a writ of mandamus against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Director of Agriculture and the State of Maharashtra directing them to communicate to the Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, the seniority of the petitioner in Class II grade of the officers allocated and absorbed by the said University. He has also prayed for a direction to the Krishi Vidyapeeth to fix up the seniority of the petitioner as per the regulation of the seniority framed by it. 2. According to the petitioner he is senior to the respondent No. 4 A.S. Naphade in every respect. He has given details about his service career in para 7 of the petition. Inspite of this admitted position, he is being bypassed while giving promotions and the respondent No. 4 Naphade is appointed in a promotional post by passing all his claims. In reply to the averments and grievances made by the petitioner in the petition, this is what the University has to say : "6. With reference to para 5 of the petition, I say that respondent No. 4 who was working as Associate Professor of Horticulture in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1900 was provisionally promoted to the cadre of Professor of Horticulture in the scale of Rs. 1500-60-1800-100-2000-125/2-2500 and appointed to officiate as Professor of Horticulture in the vacant post until further orders and on conditions. The promotion order of respondent No. 4 as professor of Horticulture at Agriculture College, Dhule is ordered purely on temporary basis. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 being allocates, it is for the Department of Agriculture State Government to fix their seniority before their allocation to the University. On the receipt of information about the seniority of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, the University will take further action in the matter. The University has approached the Department of Agriculture by Letter No. E.S.T.C./S.N.R/4406 dated 12-11-1984 particularly in respect of petitioner's case and the matter is being perused. I admit the representation made to the Registrar by the petitioner by his letter dated 20-8-1983. 7. With reference to para 6 of the petition, I say that contents therein are substantially correct. The University has approached the Department of Agriculture by Letter No. E.S.T.C./S.N.R/4406 dated 12-11-1984 particularly in respect of petitioner's case and the matter is being perused. I admit the representation made to the Registrar by the petitioner by his letter dated 20-8-1983. 7. With reference to para 6 of the petition, I say that contents therein are substantially correct. I say that by letter dated 7-4-1979, the Director of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune, while forwarding the provisional seniority list of Maharashtra Agricultural Services, Class II Officers allocated to the University, had shown respondent No. 4 at Sr. No. 328 in the seniority. I say that the petitioner's name was not included in the said list. I say that though the petitioner was promotee officer to Class II and his position was required to be indicated on, but the same was not indicated and the University has been awaiting reply from the Department of Agriculture, Government of Maharashtra. This position was explained to the petitioner by letter dated 17-9-1984 by the University, Exhibit D to the petition. The Department of Agriculture had been requested by letter dated 16-4-1985 to indicate the position of such officers. The reply from the Agricultural Department is not received yet. After receipt of the reply from the Department of Agriculture the petitioner will be given his rank in the list of seniority as per directions of the Agricultural Department State Government." 3. From this it is quite clear that the University feels that it is helpless in the matter since the Director of Agriculture and the State Government is not fixing the inter-se seniority of the officers allocated to the Krishi Vidyapeeth from the Agricultural Department. It is the case of the University that they have approached the State Government as well as the Director of Agriculture several times in this behalf. However, they are helpless in the matter since the decision is not being taken by the said authorities. No affidavit has been filed before us on behalf of the Director of Agriculture and the State Government. The attitude adopted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Director of Agriculture and the State of Maharashtra is difficult to understand. A simple matter of fixation of seniority is being prolonged by the said department for last 15 years thereby depriving the petitioner of his rightful claim. The attitude adopted by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Director of Agriculture and the State of Maharashtra is difficult to understand. A simple matter of fixation of seniority is being prolonged by the said department for last 15 years thereby depriving the petitioner of his rightful claim. Thus it appears that somebody is sitting tight over the whole matter for the reasons best known to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In our view this is a fit case where the Government and the Director of Agriculture should be directed to take necessary steps in the matter so that the matter could be finalised within a reasonable time. We do not find any reply to the averments made by the petitioners in the petition and, therefore, these averments will have to be deemed to be admitted. Since the University finds it is helpless to do justice in the case of petitioner only because the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are sitting tight over the whole matter, we direct the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the question of seniority within a period of two months from today and communicate its decision to the respondent No. 1 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth. On receipt such communication the respondent No. 1 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth shall fix the seniority of the petitioner as per the regulations of seniority framed by it and then pass appropriate orders in the matters of promotions, deemed date, payment of arrears of salary etc. within a further period of one month from the receipt of communication. Hence Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 shall pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner. 4. In the view which we have taken in Writ Petition No. 4594 of 1985, it is not necessary to pass separate orders in Writ Petition No. 4595 of 1985 filed by Shri S.V. Khandge, since once the seniority list is finalised he will be entitled to get his promotions etc. if otherwise eligible, in accordance with the rule of the University. Hence no separate orders are necessary in the said writ petition. Rule made absolute. -----