ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed off. 2. The case of the petitioner is that by an order dated 29.3.2001 (Annexure-6) one Mitlesh Kumar Deo, (respondent No. 4) Diwakar Deo, (respondent No. 5) and Bidhuti Nath Jha, (respondent No. 6), all class IV employees, were promoted to class III grade without considering the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, prays for quashing of the said order. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, however, submits that the promotion of these respondents was on the basis of an order passed by the Patna High Court. 3. However, what is necessary to be taken note of is the statement of the University made at paragraph No. 1 to the effect that the petitioner is senior to the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, who have been promoted by order dated 29.3.2001. 4. It is also the stand of the University that the appointments made were not by the competent .authority. Nonetheless, it has been submitted at paragraph 10 that the Vice-Chancellor has already issued an order directing the authorities to stop making payment of salary to the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and other promoted non-teaching staff who were being paid the scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-. It is also the stand taken by the University, in the same paragraph, that a decision has been taken to initiate steps for promotion to class III posts. 5. It is the admitted case of the parties and which none of the learned counsels appearing for the parties have disputed that the petitioner is still continuing to work right from the date when he was appointed. 6. However, taking into consideration the stand of the respondents to the effect that the appointment itself showed non-approval of the University, but nevertheless taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner as also the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 arc still working, this Court, in the light of what has been stated in the counter-affidavit at paragraph 16 infra thereof, directs the University to initiate steps within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 4, 5 and 6 arc still working, this Court, in the light of what has been stated in the counter-affidavit at paragraph 16 infra thereof, directs the University to initiate steps within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such steps are taken, then the case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated in the counter-affidavit along with all eligible persons similarly situated including the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed off.