School had executed an earlier bond on 02.02.2010 which could not be produced before this Court while hearing the writ petition. It is stated that, it was the said bond that was executed by the then Manager and not the bond dated 18.12.2010 which was referred in the judgment. The writ petitioner, on the other hand, has along with I.A.No.200/2016 filed in the review petition, produced as Ext.R1(b), a reply received by him pursuant to a query under the Right to Information Act, wherein it is stated that although the then Manager had submitted a bond dated 02.02.2010 to the educational authority, the said bond was returned to the Manager since it did not contain the necessary undertaking to appoint protected teachers. It is also pointed out that, under the said circumstances, a copy of the said bond was not available with the departmental authorities. Reference is also made in the said communication, to the bond dated 15.12.2010 (the bond referred to as the bond dated 18.12.2010 in the judgment) to state that, that was the bond which was eventually submitted by the then Manager of the School in compliance with the terms of the Government order referred above. Taking note of the said reply that was received by the husband of the writ petitioner, I find that
