JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Altaf Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 2. At the outset Mr. Altaf Hussain, learned counsel submits that so far as the respondent no. 6 is concerned he is no more. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the letter dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure-24 to the writ petition) and to declare the petitioner senior than the respondent no. 6 in view of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 767 of 2004. 4. Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1981 an advertisement was issued in local newspaper for appointment in Baghmara College, Baghmara for different faculties including the department of History. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the post of lecturer and the petitioner was selected for the post of lecturer. On 1.3.1981 appointment letter was issued by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. He was appointed on temporary basis on that post. He submitted his joining on 2.3.1981. Again on 10.04.1983 for the purpose of regularizing the post, interview was taken by the selection board and pursuant thereto the service of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 11.04.1983. By letter dated 11.04.1983 (annexed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition) the petitioner service has been regularized. It is submitted that the petitioner initially appointed on the First Post was sanctioned by the Government vide Letter dated 24.12.1988. (Annexure- 4 to the writ application). He further submits that in the year 1994 the post of History Department was advertised by the Bihar College Service Commission by Advertisement No. 33 of 1994. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the said post the Bihar College Service Commission after having interview selected the petitioner for that post. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Commission vide letter dated 01.06.1998 (annexed at Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and approved by the governing body of the college on 10.02.1999 and the order to that effect was issued on 12.2.1999 (annexed at Annexure-7 to the writ petition) in which it was mentioned that there will be no change in his seniority which will remain determined as per the date of joining in the College i.e. 2.3.1981. After the recommendation, the name of the petitioner was approved by the governing body and sent to the University for such approval and vide memo no. 877 dated 14.05.2011 (annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The University approved the name of the petitioner on the first Post for which notification was issued. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the year 1981 and vide letter dated 11.01.1984 (annexed at Annexure-9 to the writ petition) the governing body took a decision that in absence of Principal of the college the petitioner will function as Professor-in-Charge of the college. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Dubey submits that the petitioner was always asked to function as Professor-in-Charge in absence of the regular Principal of the college for which time to time letter has been issued. But, in the seniority list respondent no. 6 has been shown above the petitioner who has been appointed in the year 1985 whereas the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 and on this fact the petitioner has claimed himself as senior than the respondent no. 6. Mr. Dubey further submits that identical issues has been decided by this Court in W.P.(S.) No. 767 of 2004 which was disposed vide order dated 13.11.2006 and against the said order L.P.A. was preferred and the order of learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. At this stage, Mr. Dubey submits that in view of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(S.) No. 767 of 2004 dated 13.1.2006 the respondent University may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, appearing for the respondent University and Mr. Aftab Hussain for the respondent no. 6 having no objection if the writ petition disposed of subject to the condition that other persons should also be heard before passing of the appropriate order by the concerned authorities. 6. In view of the submission of the parties, this Court directs the respondent no. 3 to take appropriate decision in the light of the observations made herein above and taking into account the order dated 13.11.2006 passed in W.P.(S.) No. 767 of 2004 after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the concerned persons including the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no. 3 with detailed representation within two weeks from today and the respondent no. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no. 3 with detailed representation within two weeks from today and the respondent no. 3 will take decision within 8 weeks thereafter and pass speaking order in this regard. Accordingly, the writ petition allowed. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.