Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for review petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh.

2. Facts of the present case are that review petitioner, Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, initially approached this Court by filling a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the reliefs claimed by him petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 7770 (MB) of 2011 (Chandra Bhushan Pandey v. Sri Narain Singh and others) are quoted hereinbelow :

“(i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Minister for Horticulture, the respondent No. 1 to remove Sri Jeevan Lal Verma from the post of his Personal Secretary.

(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 2 hold an enquiry regarding the misconduct of Sri Jeevan Lal Verma.

(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 3, the Principal Secretary, Horticulture to ensure the proper application of the order passed by Principal Secretary dated 30th June, 2007 and to remove the officers wrongly posted accordingly.

(iv) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 t