ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It was admitted by the University as also by respondent no. 5 that at no point of time 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 7). 3. The petitioner claims that he is senior to respondent no. 5 because he was promoted as University Professor earlier than him. Respondent no. 3 claimed that he was appointed as lecturer earlier than the petitioner and as such he must be deemed to be senior to the petitioner. It was also alleged that date of Promotion of respondent no. 1 to the post of University Professor was corrected and it was shown as 1.2.1985. 4. Since the question of seniority was never determined by giving notice to the persons who may be adversely affected particularly in this case, in view of the letter of the principal as contained in annexure 6, we are of the opinion that the University should decide the inter se seniority 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 thare shouldnot be any difficulty with the Vice Chancellor to dispose or the matter within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is ordered that matter shall be disposed of within that period. 5. If the Vice Chancellor finds that the petitioner was senior to respondent no. 5, he shall forthwith issue notification cancelling annexure 7. 6 This application is disposed of.