JUDGEMENT 1. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to add Bihar Agricultural University having its headquarters at Sabbr, District- Bhagalpur as party-respondent. 2. Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay, who is already appearing for Rajendra Agricultural University, accepts notice on behalf of Bihar Agriculture University as well. 3. Let it be noted that it is only towards the end of 2010 that Rajendra Agricultural University was bifurcated into Rajendra Agriculture University and Bihar Agricultural University. 4. The three petitioners are the Teachers/ Research Scientists under the erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural University and are dairy experts. They challenged the manner in which Rajendra Agricultural University picked up the cases of the teachers for grant of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme. They have submitted that how selectively few teachers were taken up for consideration and how the panel of those were publically disclosed and how some teachers, who were the members of the Board of management of the University managed to get the promotion and being in the Board, confirmed the same in their own favour leaving out people like the petitioners, who had no contact to get the favour. At the time of final hearing of this application Mr. Ojha submits that he would not go into dirtiest details, for he is interested in the promotion being granted to his client whatever may in respect of others. 5. In 2010, petitioner no.1 filed an application under Right to Information Act querying from Rajendra Agricultural University, which had not been bifurcated till then as to the petitioners case for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme. The reply that was received from the University was that the petitioner no.1 was entitled to Selection Grade from 27.7.1998 and Senior Scientist from 3.8.2006 but the matter has to receive the approval of the Expert Committee. It was further pointed out that the case of the petitioner was not sent to the Expert Committee because he has earlier not got the qualification of Ph.D. The petitioners states that during the pendency of the writ petition itself, all petitioners had acquired the said Doctorate qualification, still only to deprive the petitioners of their timely promotion, their cases have not been referred to the Expert Committee. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Ojha submits that so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he has obtained Ph.D in the year 2006, still for last five years even though he is entitled to promotion for over a decade he is being denied the same as the matter is not being sent to the Expert Committee for approval.The case of other petitioners are the similar. 7. On behalf of the Agriculture University, it is submitted that when others were granted promotion, petitioners were not qualified to be reconsidered for grant of promotion. They lack the doctorate qualification. Now they had got the doctorate qualification, their cases will be considered. 8. Having considered the matter, in my view, the submission of learned counsel for the Rajendra Agricultural University that their case will be considered in due course cannot be accepted. It is extremely vague and uncertain. Petitioner no.1 was fully qualified for consideration at least in 2006, still for last five years, his case is under consideration. Why this lethargic attitude is not explained. All other works of the University are being carried out but grant of promotion to a few. 8A. Having considered the matter, I am left with no option but to direct the concerned University to immediately within one month from today send the case of the petitioners and all others similarly placed for consideration of the Expert Committee for grant of promotion under the said Scheme with all relevant papers and documents. It may be clarified for this limited purpose that till separate Rules and Regulations are framed under Bihar Agricultural University, Rules, Regulations and Practices, which were applicable to and carried out in respect of erstwhile Rajendra Agricultural University would continue to apply and the cases of the petitioners would have to be dealt with accordingly. The Expert Committee would consider the cases expeditiously and make appropriate recommendation within three months of reference to it without fail. If the petitioners or any others are found entitled to promotion, the promotion order thereafter issued and notified within one week with all consequential benefits to be paid within one month thereafter. The responsibility whereof would be squarely upon the Vice Chancellor of Bihar Agricultural University, who would implement the order of this Court in true letter and spirit. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. The responsibility whereof would be squarely upon the Vice Chancellor of Bihar Agricultural University, who would implement the order of this Court in true letter and spirit. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Learned Counsel for the Agricultural University points out that the writ petitioner has also filed another writ application challenging the validity of Career Advancement Scheme. 11. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that in view of the direction given herein he would accordingly advice his client to withdraw the said writ petition.