JUDGMENT K. Narayan, J. - The applicants have prayed for notification in an earlier order dated 13-1-1992 of this Court and have also prayed that a direction he made to the Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra to refer the matter to the authority concerned, namely some other District Inspector of Schools. Before proceeding with the application itself, it may he mentioned that on 13-1-1992 an order was made disposing of the petition of the petitioner directing disposing of certain matters by the District inspector of Schools Mathura with a time bound schedule after hearing both the petitioner as well as Sri Amar Nath Tyagi and any other affected person in the cases. There were certain allegations in that petition against District Inspector of Schools personally and he was also made a party in person but these allegations were not taken much notice of and no notice was given to him in person. 2. In the present application, the applicants have contended that the District Inspector of Schools on receiving the copy oi the order of this Court has fixed 31-1-1992 for hearing at 3 o'clock according to the applicants, after that they wrote another letter to the District Inspector of Schools on 21-1-1992 disputing his independence deal with the matter and also sent a letter to that effect. According to him, it is on receipt of this letter that the District Inspector of Schools had some how conveyed his annoyance over the matter. The applicants have thus approached this Court for virtually a change in the officer or some other direction under the garb of above prayer. 3. The application has been vehemently opposed by Shri Mahesh Gautam. counsel for the respondent No. 3. In the first instance, he has challenged the maintainability of such an application after decision of the writ petition and in this behalf had referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Brahma Dutt Sharma, reported in 1987 UPLBEC page 28. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants had referred me to the decision in the case of Ariban T. Sharma v. Ariban P. Sharma, reported in AIR 1979 SC page 1047. I have gone through both these cases. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicants had referred me to the decision in the case of Ariban T. Sharma v. Ariban P. Sharma, reported in AIR 1979 SC page 1047. I have gone through both these cases. I do not think any further discussion is needed in respect of them as there is always the authority to entertain review, recall and restoration petitions in respect of the writ petition also and consequently the application given could also be entertained. On course as to what extent a relief can be given will depend on various other factors, which will obtain in individual cases. 4. In the instance case, the entire allegations of the applicants are based upon his apprehension that the District Inspector of Schools shall not behave Properly. The question is as to who is responsible for it ? What ever was the situation was obtaining before 31st January, 1992 had already been taken into account while making the order. In the present application the grievance of the applicants has grown up on his own behaviour, Which he extended towards District Inspector of Schools on 20-1-1992 and onwards. Can a man say that he would abuse a man and turn round to assert that since he has abused him he will not like the matter referred to him or that there should be a change. He one can take benefit of his own conduct, which obviously can manage subsequent to the order. 5. Apart from this factor, still more important aspect is that the District Inspector of Schools was only the competent authority to deal with such a case under Section 16-G (8) of Intermediate Education Act. In fact, it was his own order, which has been directed to be reviewed by him after following certain procedure by order dated 13-1-1992. Under this section, the satisfaction of the Inspector and affording of the opportunity by the Inspector are the basis. If there was' an omission in giving due notice to the management it was his affair and it was referred to him. Under this section, the satisfaction of the Inspector and affording of the opportunity by the Inspector are the basis. If there was' an omission in giving due notice to the management it was his affair and it was referred to him. The word inspector' has been defined in Section 2 (bb) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act to mean the District Inspector of Schools and in relation to an institution for girls regional Inspectors of Girls Schools as the case may be, and in each case includes an officer authorised by the State Government' to perform all or any of the functions of Inspector under this Act. Unless there is some other District Inspector of Schools in the District Which does not appear to be the authority could not be altered even by the Deputy Director or Director of Education. Only the State Government could do it by nominating another person or alike. Therefore, the prayer that the Deputy Director of Education may be directed to make any person to look into the matter would be illegal and cannot be granted. 6. The other aspect, for modifying the order is naturally not possible unless proper application for review is made and that too with specific grounds which would justify a review. There does not appear any good reason for that, so far. 7. None of the two prayers of the applicants can be entertained and the application should fail. 8. The present application is, therefore, rejected.