contained in the said original petition show that the challenge was against Exts.P7 and P9 therein (Exts.P5 and P7 herein). The claim raised by the third respondent in the said writ petition is for appointment as Peon in the school in the vacancy which arose on 1.6.2001. One of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition was for a direction to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner as Peon in his school in the vacancy which arose on 1.6.2001 with retrospective effect from 1.6.2001. This court, at the stage of admission disposed of the writ petition, directing the educational authorities to consider and pass orders on the representation Ext.P9 produced along with C.M.P.No.46789/2002. The said representation was considered by the District Educational Officer. In the body of the representation also it is stated by the third respondent that she was entitled for appointment in the vacancy of Peon which arose on 1.6.2001. Therefore, apparently she had been seeking for appointment as a Peon in the vacancy which arose on 1.6.2001. The fourth respondent was promoted in that vacancy since he is a claimant under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. These aspects were not considered by the District Educational Officer while passing Ext.P11 order, obviously. In Ext.P13 order passed by the Government also, these aspects have not been considered. As noted already, the question is whether the
