O R D E R

The first respondent herein filed W.P(C).No.10779 of 2013 against the respondents 2 onwards for a direction to the DEO, Palakkad to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7, representations marked in the writ petition. The first respondent claimed that he being the senior most qualified teacher for appointment of Principal in the school concerned and the Head Mistress of that school had retired on 31.03.2013, he was to be appointed as Principal. His grievance was that Exts.P6 and P7, representations pending before the 5th respondent (4th respondent in the writ petition) was not considered.

2. This Court as per judgment dated 30.05.2013 directed the 5th respondent to dispose of Ext.P6 and P7, representations in the writ petition after hearing all the parties affected/interested.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that review petitioner who is the President of the educational agency as approved by Annexure-A, moved Annexures-B and C, representations before the 5th respondent to hear him also before Exts.P6 and P7, representations in the writ petition are disposed of R.P.No.621 of 2013 in W.P(C).No.10779 of 2013 but, that authority rejected request of the review petition