JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Abhinav Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4. 2. Since, learned counsel for the petitioner has proposed to remit the matter to the Chancellor of the University for taking decision on the representation, at this stage, we feel appropriate to dispense with notices to be issued to opposite parties No. 5 and 6. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to dispose of petitioner’s reference under Section 68 of the State University Act, 1973 which is pending for consideration with the Chancellor since March, 2016. 3. We are informed that the pleadings before the Chancellor have already been completed but decision is yet to be taken in the matter, therefore, at this stage, we feel it appropriate to provide that before taking any final decision, the notices should also be issued to the opposite parties No. 5, 6 and 7 so that decision may be taken after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties as the dispute appears to be a dispute of inter se seniority on the post of Associate Professor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that the post of the Principal is vacant as the Principal has already been retired on 31.12.2016 and now a fresh appointment has to be made on the post of Principal, therefore, it would be appropriate to issue direction to the Chancellor of the University to decide the issue of Seniority by taking decision on the petitioner’s representation expeditiously, so that the person entitled may be allowed to officiate the post of Principal or may be posted in regular manner. 5. In view of the aforesaid submission, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent No. 1 to take decision on the petitioner’s representation after noticing the respondent No. 5, 6 and 7 within one month from the date of communication of this order. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.