(1.) The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of order of this court dated 22nd February, 2010.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court while passing order dated 22nd February, 2010 had, in fact, varied and changed the directions given by the Division Bench in its order dated 18th May, 2009.
(3.) I consider that this averment made by the petitioner is baseless. In order dated 18th May, 2009, the petitioner had given an assurance to the court that he will cooperate with the inquiry and also assured the court that he would not issue any letter contrary to existing rules and shall avoid all administrative controversies. Counsel for the respondents had given assurance to the court that University will furnish the documents asked for by the petitioner in its letter dated 8th May, 2009 as well as 24th April, 2009, if not already supplied.