submissions on the basis of the pleadings and documents filed in support of their positions. On behalf of the third respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court, challenging the Notification calling for appointment to the post of Principal and the writ petitions came to be dismissed and the writ appeals filed against that are pending final consideration and therefore, his continuation would not be in public interest. Moreover, it is contended on behalf of the third respondent that the petitioner had already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench by filing M.A. Nos.537, 538 and 719 of 2016 in M.A.No.926 of 2015 in unnumbered review application in O.A.No.511 of 2010 seeking to recall the order passed in M.A.No.926 of 2015 dated 19.01.2016, in which, the Tribunal while dismissing M.A.No.926 of 2015 directed the first respondent to pass orders on the representation made by the third respondent dated 05.10.2015. However, the said application filed by the petitioner came to be eventually dismissed by order dated 04.10.2016 saying that the order passed in the said M.A. had worked itself out in view of the first respondent’s order dated 08.06.2016, which order is impugned in the present writ petition. Therefore, it is submitted that having failed in his attempt to secure an order before the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.
