ORDER Heard Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the University and Dr. Amrendra Kumar, counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. Initially, the petitioner filed this writ application for quashing of annexure-9, issued vide memo no. G/118 dated 17.1.2001, whereby and whereunder respondent no. 4, Dr. Brahamanand Pandey was made Professor-in-charge of Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna University and also to declare him senior to respondent no. 4. Subsequently, by way of amendment, the petitioner has also challenged the subsequent notification issued by the University as contained in annexure-17 pursuant to the direction of the Chancellor, as contained in annexure-18. By annexure-17, respondent no. 4 was appointed temporarily as Professor-in-charge of Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna University. 3. It is contended by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and respondent no. 4 both were appointed altogether after due selection in the year 1978 and since both of them had secured equal marks, they were bracketed and subsequently a panel was prepared where the petitioner was placed at sl. no. 3 on the basis of the marks secured by him in M. Com. and the better educational qualifications, whereas respondent no. 4 was placed at sl. no. 4. The same however, is alleged to have been tampered by making the position of the petitioner at sl. no. 4 and that of respondent no. 4 at sl. no. 3. The petitioner, thereafter filed representations as contained in annexure-6 and 6/A before the Vice-Chancellor of the University as far back as in the year 2000-2001 requesting him to make him know about his position in the hierarchy in the faculty of Commerce. His representations, however, were never attended to and ultimately the petitioner came to this Court by this writ application and during the pendency of this application the notification as contained in annexure-17 was issued pursuant to the direction of the Chancellor of the University. It is further contended by learned counsel that since the writ application was pending before this Court no decision whatsoever could have been taken when the Respondent University and the private respondent were noticed by this Court and they put their appearance. However, the petitioner again filed his representation dated 8.6.2004 requesting the Vice-Chancellor to decide his inter se seniority, but the same also remained pending without any decision. It is further contended by Mr. However, the petitioner again filed his representation dated 8.6.2004 requesting the Vice-Chancellor to decide his inter se seniority, but the same also remained pending without any decision. It is further contended by Mr. Sinha that it would be evident from annexure-2 itself that in case two persons secured the same marks their seniority could be decided on the basis of the marks secured in M.Com. My attention thereafter was drawn to annexure-12 showing that the petitioner had secured 14 marks, whereas respondent no. 4 secured 12 marks and in that view of the matter, in the panel, as contained in annexure-2, he was placed above respondent no. 4, but subsequently certain tamperings were made without information to this petitioner nor it appears to be a bona fide correction made by the experts to prepare the panel as no initial was put there. Learned counsel on this basis submitted that the petitioner rightly was placed at sl. no. 3 in the panel above respondent no. 4 and his seniority, therefore, could have been reckoned accordingly. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the University, on the contrary, submitted that the petitioner was shown below respondent no. 4 in the panel and the reasons for that would appear from annexure-12 itself as the petitioner had secured lessor marks in viva voce. 5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University, nowhere it is contended as to under what circumstances the representations filed by the petitioner were not attended to nor anything has been stated about taking decision pertaining to seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 4. 6. Dr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submitted that In view of annexure-12, respondent no. 4 was found to be senior to the petitioner and there is no manipulation in annexure-12 which was the whole basis for fixing the seniority. 7. So far as annexure-2 is concerned it appears that a committee consisting of three Professors, prepared a panel of the persons selected for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna University. In the panel the petitioner was shown at sl. no. 3, whereas respondent no. 4 was shown at sl. no. 4. 7. So far as annexure-2 is concerned it appears that a committee consisting of three Professors, prepared a panel of the persons selected for appointment on the post of Lecturer in Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna University. In the panel the petitioner was shown at sl. no. 3, whereas respondent no. 4 was shown at sl. no. 4. At the same time, it further appears that a clause was incorporated in the panel showing that in case two persons are bracketed, their seniority would be decided on the basis of the marks secured in M. Com. Examination. 8. Assuming that certain omissions were found in annexure-2 about the placement of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 4, necessary correction could have been made by putting initial by the experts. Ex facie, it appears from annexure-2 that certain Interpolations were made by hands without putting initial. This obviously, therefore, shows that it was not a bona fide correction made so far as the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 4 was concerned. Besides all these questions, it appears that when the matter was pending before this Court since 2001 no decision could have been taken by the, University placing respondent no. 4 above the petitioner by making him Professor-in-charge. Even the request made by the petitioner in that regard as far back as in the year 2004 itself was ignored. Under such circumstances, the University was dutybound to consider the case of the petitioner upon his objection filed. The decision accordingly were taken in a most arbitrary manner ignoring the claim of the petitioner altogether. 9. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, in my opinion, the matter requires afresh consideration by the University pertaining to the seniority of the petitioner visa-vis respondent no. 4. 10. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Orders impugned as contained in annexure-9, 17 and 18 are quashed 11. However, the matter is remitted back to the Vice-Chancellor to decide the question of seniority of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and respondent no. 4. The decision in this regard should be taken by the Vice-Chancellor, preferably within a period of four months. 12. In the meantime, the Vice-Chancellor shall make ad hoc arrangement for day-to-day administration of the college.