ORDER : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Notification as contained in Memo No.Esstt./EC/435-444/2011 dated 22.09.2011 issued under the signature of the respondent-Registrar Ranchi University, Ranchi whereby the promotion granted to the petitioner from Grade-IV to Grade-III and acted upon has been withdrawn without any show cause notice or resorting to the procedure established under law. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 09.06.2012, whereby the respondent no.6 has been promoted on Grade III post of Store Keeper. 3. The facts of the case as disclosed in the instant writ application is that the petitioner has been engaged as daily wages employees since 1985 and was regularized on the Grade-IV post of peon in the examination department of the respondent college w.e.f 01.08.1999. Thereafter, for promotion of the employees from Grade IV post to Grade III post; a departmental examination was held in the month of August, 2009 and on the basis of said written examination the name of the petitioner along with others were recommended vide letter dated 22.08.2009 for promotion on Class III post. The said promotion order was given effect vide order dated 02.09.2011. The grievance of this petitioner is that all of sudden, the respondent-University came with the partial modification of the earlier promotion vide notification dated 22.09.2011 (Annexure-4), whereby the name of the petitioner as well as one Pramod Kumar Mali has been withdrawn from the original list of promotion. 4. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has been passed against the settled principles of Natural Justice and without verifying the documents. Learned counsel contended that on the basis of recommendation of the Principal of the college and Promotion Committee constituted by the Office order dated 12.09.2009, list of promoted persons were published in which the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.9. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2011 of the respondent-College, the said notification was implemented by issuing an Office Order on 02.09.2011 by the Principal. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2011 of the respondent-College, the said notification was implemented by issuing an Office Order on 02.09.2011 by the Principal. He further draws attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- University and refers to Annexure-1 and contended that the list of employees who appeared in the departmental promotion examination held in the month of August, 2009 for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade-III employees; the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.3. He further submits that there is a certificate given by one Prashant Kumar; who has certified that the answer books of above candidates are under the custody of the Principal; as such, the same has not been sent. He further draws attention to the letter dated 11.06.2012 written by the Principal to the Registrar, Ranchi University which is with respect to an enquiry by a Committee regarding promotion of Grade IV employees of Marwari College to Grade III. Learned counsel further contended that in this letter also, the name of the petitioner figures; however, the name of the respondent no.6 does not appear at any place. Relying upon the aforesaid facts; learned counsel contended that the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to continue on promotional post of Grade-III. 5. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 (private respondent) submits that he was appointed as lab boy in Class-IV post at Marwari College and he became eligible for being appointed on Grade III post on completion of Seven years of experience. He further referred to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University wherein at Para-5 it has been stated that departmental promotion examination was held in the month of August, 2009 for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade III post and his name appears at serial no.1 in the letter dated 03.08.2010. He further submits that the petitioner for the reasons best known to him is targeting respondent no.6 only. He fairly submits that he is eligible for promotion and he don’t have any concerned as to whether the promotion shall be granted to the petitioner or not but he is eligible for promotion and only due to that reason, he has been promoted to Grade-III post. 6. Mr. He fairly submits that he is eligible for promotion and he don’t have any concerned as to whether the promotion shall be granted to the petitioner or not but he is eligible for promotion and only due to that reason, he has been promoted to Grade-III post. 6. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 submits that from perusal of record available with the Ranchi University it appears that for promotion from Grade-IV to Grade III, a departmental promotion examination was held in the month of August, 2009 in which Grade IV employees appeared in the written examination including the petitioner as well as respondent no.6 and the then Prof. In-charge also prepared the merit list of employees who appeared in the departmental promotion examination. In the said merit list name of the respondent no.6 appears at serial no.1 and the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.3 while one Pramaod Kumar Mali appears at serial no.2. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared on 03.08.2010 and was forwarded to the University. While referring to several documents which has also been referred by the petitioner and contesting respondent no.6., Mr. Mehta submits that since there was a gap of four years from 2009 to 2012 and also there are documents which has been signed by different persons though in the capacity of Principal and it is also a fact that the name of the petitioner as well as respondent no.6 appears in the list dated 03.08.2010; as such, it would be better if the matter shall be remanded back to the University to look into the matter and after due verification, take a decision. 7. Having heard the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that on the basis of written examination and length of service the name of the petitioner was recommended vide letter dated 22.08.2009 and thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Grade III post vide order dated 29.07.2011 and thereafter an Office order dated 02.09.2011 was also issued giving effect to that promotion. It further transpires from the record that without issuing any show cause notice or without hearing the petitioner; the respondent came with a further notification whereby the promotion of this petitioner along with one Pramod Kumar Mali was withdrawn with effect from 29.07.2011. It further transpires from the record that without issuing any show cause notice or without hearing the petitioner; the respondent came with a further notification whereby the promotion of this petitioner along with one Pramod Kumar Mali was withdrawn with effect from 29.07.2011. There are several letters annexed by rival parties; however, in each letter the name of the petitioner appears. It further transpires that in few documents the name of the respondent no.6 does not appear; however, in some document his name has been shown at serial no.1. As such, this Court is in agreement with the contention of Mr. Mehta-learned counsel for the University that being disputed question of fact; the case should be remanded back to the concerned authority to verify each and every documents and take a fresh decision. It further transpires from the record that admittedly; before withdrawing the name of the petitioner from the list of promoted candidates, no show cause notice was given to him and it further transpires that in all most all the documents the name of the petitioner finds place in the list of promoted persons. In these background this Court is of the view that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside. 8. Consequently, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.Esstt./EC/435-444/2011 dated 22.09.2011 and also the order dated 09.06.2012, are hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3, who is directed to constitute a committee to enquire into the matter and verify all the factual aspects and the documents relied upon by the rival parties and submit the report to the V.C. 9. It is made clear that since the matter is very old the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The parties are at liberty to file their individual claim/representation before the concerned Committee who shall verify the contents and submit the report to the Respondent No.3 who shall pass a final order within a further period of eight weeks following principles of natural justice. 10. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands disposed. Writ petition disposed of.