Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioners have filed this review petition praying therein that the order dated 20. 3. 2006 passed by this Court in W. P. No. 4042/2006 (S) (Dr. R. K. Goyal v. State of M. P. and Anr.) be reviewed. ( 2. ) THE contention of review petitioners is that the above-said order in the writ petition was passed by this Court on the contention which was put-forth by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner that indeed, reply to the charge-sheet was filed by the delinquent, but the order of suspension which was impugned in the writ petition, was passed on the ground that no reply against the charge-sheet has been filed by the writ petitioner. By inviting my attention to Annexure-P-3 which was submitted by the writ petitioner against the charge-sheet in the writ petition, it has been submitted by Shri Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate that indeed Annexure-P-3 is nothing but preliminary submission of writ petitioner which was filed against the charge-sheet and the writ petitioner reserved his right to file reply in detail on factual averments. In Annex. P-3 it has been submitted and prayed that after inspecting the requisite record, writ petitioner would be able to file reply to the charge-sheet In detail. Thus, it has been prayed that since factually the submissions of writ petitioner were incorrect, therefore, this review petition be allowed. ( 3. ) SHRI Kale, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has submitted that scope of review is very limited and since there is no mistake apparent on the face of record, this Court at the threshold, should dismiss the review petition. It has been further submitted by learned senior counsel that the order in writ petition was passed on consent basis and if that is the position, said order cannot be reviewed. However, learned senior counsel submits that the writ petitioner (respondent here in this review petition) would like to file reply against the charge-sheet in detail controverting the factual averments after inspecting the official record. ( 4. ) CONSIDERED rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 5. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this review petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6. ) THIS Court on 20. 3. ( 4. ) CONSIDERED rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 5. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this review petition deserves to be allowed. ( 6. ) THIS Court on 20. 3. 2006 in the writ petition passed the following order: Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Chief Secretary of State of M. P. is hereby directed to look after the matter and if on scrutiny of the matter it is found that petitioner before issuance of suspension order (Annexure-P-1) dated 13. 3. 2006 has already submitted his reply to the charge-sheet as indicated and acknowledged in Annexure-P-4 dated 1. 10. 2005, necessary order in that regard to the suspension of the petitioner may be passed. Till then the impugned order (Annexure-P-1) shall remain in abeyance. Respondents are hereby directed to allow the joining of the petitioner. ( 7. ) DURING the course of argument before this Court in the writ petition it was demonstrated by the writ petitioner that in fact he had filed reply to the charge-sheet and since suspension order is passed on the ground that no reply has been filed, therefore, it is bad in law and in that situation this Court passed the above-said order and it was directed to the Chief Secretary to look after the matter and if reply has been filed, necessary order in regard to suspension of the writ petitioner may be passed and till then the suspension order was kept in abeyance. The order was not passed on consent basis. ( 8. ) DURING the course of argument in this review petition it has further been submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that in fact right to file reply in detail controverting the factual averments has been reserved by the writ petitioner in Annexure-P-3 filed in the writ petition. The contention of learned senior counsel is that vide Annexure-P-3 only preliminary submissions were put-forth reserving the right to file reply in detail. Thus somersault has been taken by the writ petitioner that he only submitted preliminary objections and he would like to file reply in detail against the charge-sheet after inspecting the official record. The contention of learned senior counsel is that Annexure-P-3 is also part of the reply. ( 9. Thus somersault has been taken by the writ petitioner that he only submitted preliminary objections and he would like to file reply in detail against the charge-sheet after inspecting the official record. The contention of learned senior counsel is that Annexure-P-3 is also part of the reply. ( 9. ) SINCE somersault is taken in the stand by the writ petitioner, therefore, the order under challenge in this review petition is set aside. The review petition is allowed and Writ Petition No. 4042/2006 (S) is directed to be listed for hearing on the question of admission. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.