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 to give dual charge to all District Horticulture Officers till the shortage of cadre officers is fulfilled by fresh appointment.

(v) to issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

3. By order dated 30.8.2011, the above noted writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is not a “person aggrieved” in regard to subject-matter involved in the instant case, hence, he has no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the observation that “Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. has very fairly submitted that he will look into the matter and bring it to the notice of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action, if the same is correct. We hope and trust on the submission made by Sri Mathur, who will use his office to do the needful.”

4. Sri Ashok Pande, learned counsel for review petitioner submits that the petitioner is a “person aggrieved” because he is a citizen of India and being an officer of the Horticulture Department as well as the President of the Horticulture Officers Association. Due to corruption prevailing in the department the public money is being mis-utilized and the honest cadre officers including the petitioner are being subjected to cruelty, torture and misbehaviour. So, on the basis of some judgments of the Hobn’ble Supreme Court, which were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is highly unjust, improper, illegal and unconstitutional to not grant relief to the petitioner, as such the judgment needs to be reviewed.

5. He further submits that inspite of the assurance given by Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. that he will look into the matter and bring to the notice of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action, if the same is correct but nothing has been done. Sri Jeevan Lal Verma is still working as Personal Secretary to Minister, posted against the rules, still enjoying his office and the petitioner who approach this Hon’ble Court with an expectation that the Court will do justice, has been transferred from Headquarter to Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi). So, the order dated 30.8.2011 may be reviewed.

6. Sri J.N. Mathur, learned AGA had informed that the order dated 30.8.2011 of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 7770 (MB) of 2011 (Chandra Bhushan Pandey v. Sri Narain Singh and others) has been communicated to the Minister concerned for necessary compliance.

7. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh, the sole question which is to be considered and decided in the present case is the scope of