JUDGMENT : Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits counter affidavit in the Court, which is being kept on record. 2. Heard Ms. Sarita Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents for promotion from Class-IV to Class-III post under the provision for promotion of 20% of Grade-IV employees to Grade-III on the basis of C.C.H., eligibility, seniority and reservation roster as per rules. 4. The petitioner earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2351 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 02.12.2003 (Annexure-4 of the writ petition) with a direction to the respondent Vice-Chancellor to pass appropriate order in pursuant to the statement made in paragraph -5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 within the period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On non-compliance of the said order, the petitioner again moved before this Court in Contempt (Civil) Case No. 459 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.06.2006. 5. Pursuant to the contempt proceeding, Mr. Singh learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that now the review of the case of promotion has been taken place and the promotion of the concerned persons is taken back. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the persons juniors to the petitioner are promoted to the Class- III post while the petitioner still working in Class –IV post. By referring the Annexure-9 of the writ petition, she submits that the persons named in the Annexure-9 for the promotion from Class-IV to Class-III posts are juniors to the petitioner, but, the petitioner has been left out without any rhyme and reason. 7. On query made by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent-University is not able to reply the Annexure-9 as to why the persons who are juniors to the petitioner were promoted to Class-III post. 8. In view of the above, the respondent Vice-Chancellor is directed to take decision looking into the annexure-9 and he will also pass a reasoned order to the facts as to how the persons who named in the Annexure-9 are juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to Class-III posts and the petitioner left out. 8. In view of the above, the respondent Vice-Chancellor is directed to take decision looking into the annexure-9 and he will also pass a reasoned order to the facts as to how the persons who named in the Annexure-9 are juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to Class-III posts and the petitioner left out. The Vice-Chancellor shall pass a reasoned and speaking order with communication to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the contention of the petitioner is found correct he will pass the speaking order considering the prayer of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.