JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to appoint him to the post of Professor Incharge. Further prayer has been made challenging the appointment of respondent No. 6, who has been illegally and arbitrarily appointed, dehors the rules. 3. The short facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that petitioner joined as Assistant Professor in the year 1983 and is currently posted as Head of Department of Political Science at Aditya Narayan College, Dumka (for short "A.N. College"), which is an affiliated College of Sidhu Kanhu University, Dumka. Initially the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis and his services were regularized in the year 1988. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working in the said College since the year of inception of the College and is also one of the Founder Teachers of the A.N. College. While working in the said College, the petitioner held different positions and responsibilities and has carried-out his duties with utmost sincerity. He has in the past acted as the Coordinator of Internal Quality Assurance Cell for NAAC Accreditation and presently, he is member of the College Development Committee and Coordinator for workshop and seminar sponsored by University Grant Commission and is also the Secretary of the Teachers'' Association of the said College. It has been further mentioned that after the demise of former Professor Incharge, late Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh on 04.01.2017, the Governing Body of A.N. College, led by respondent No. 4, who is also a Member of Legislative Assembly from Dumka constituency and a Cabinet Minister in the present Jharkhand Government, requested the Vice Chancellor of Sidhu Kanhu University for setting-up a panel for selection of an Acting Professor/ Principal Incharge. On the request of the Governing Body, the Vice Chancellor set-up three Members for interviewing the eligible candidates for the post of Acting Principal/ Professor Incharge. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in total 12 Professors had applied for the said post and after interview, only the names of the present petitioner and respondent No. 6 were forwarded to the Governing Body for appointment to the post of Acting Principal/ Professor Incharge. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in total 12 Professors had applied for the said post and after interview, only the names of the present petitioner and respondent No. 6 were forwarded to the Governing Body for appointment to the post of Acting Principal/ Professor Incharge. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent No. 6 has a very poor attendance records and the same is clearly evident from his salary statement for the period 2010-17. The salary statement reflects that the respondent No. 6 has remained absent from his duty for nearly 62 months out of 84 months, which is above the sanctioned leave quota and is in clear violation of the University Grant Commission''s Leave Rules. On 29.01.2009, one Sambhunath Jha, Assistant Professor in Sanskrit Department of A.N. College was served show-cause notice and was later on dismissed due to his continuous absence. Similarly, two more Professors were dismissed on similar grounds. It has also been stated that respondent No. 6 has been working since 1985 and on various occasions had been absenting himself from the work without any prior notice to the College Authority, which is in clear violation of University Grant Commission''s Leave Rules. The former Professor Incharge, late Mr. R.K. Singh, who held the said post from the year 1988, is the brother of respondent No. 6 and as such, he had been ignoring the repetitive act of respondent No. 6 of keeping away/ absenting himself from duty and the misconduct and leave without sanction was totally safeguarded and no disciplinary action was taken against the respondent No. 6. The petitioner was surprised to know that inspite of all illegal activities, the name of respondent No. 6 was recommended by the University to the Governing Body for the post of Acting Principal/ Professor Incharge. The petitioner is aggrieved by nonconsideration of his case for the appointment to the post of Acting Principal/ Professor Incharges and as such, he made repeated representations before the Vice Chancellor and other competent-authorities but no heed was paid to the said representation and till date no decisions has been taken and as such, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon''ble Court. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Vipul Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of Acting Principal/ Professor Incharge and the respondent No. 6 is in no way competent to be appointed as Professor Incharge. The action taken by the Governing Body was not in consonance with the existing Rules, Guidelines and Statutes of the University and no person, who is guilty of misconduct can be made a Professor Incharge. It has been further argued that approval of the University for appointment of respondent No. 6 as Incharge Professor is not tenable in the eyes of law as the same was done dehors the rules. Learned counsel further argues that as no decision has been taken on his pending representation till date by the Vice Chancellor, suffice it would be if a direction be given to the respondent No. 3 to take a conscious decision upon the pending representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period. 6. On the other hand, as no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, Dr. A.K. Singh submits that in absence of any counter-affidavit, he is not in a position to say or comment as to how the respondent No. 6 was appointed and why till date no decision has been taken on the pending representation of the petitioner. However, Dr. Singh submits that if a direction is given by this Court, the respondent shall pass reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the fair submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the representation of the petitioner is pending before the Vice Chancellor, without entering into the merits of the case, it would be desirable to direct the Vice Chancellor to take conscious decision on the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. 8. In alternative, the petitioner may file fresh representation annexing all the documents upon which he is relying along with a copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same, the Vice Chancellor is directed to consider the case of the petitioner after providing ample opportunity of hearing to him and thereafter, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.