A. K. SIKRI ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed seeking review of judgement dated 3/12/1999 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 5173 of 1999. By judgment dated 3/12/1999, writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the following directions :- a. The case of the petitioner for transfer to JAG Branch be considered in the light of my discussion above, particularly, in view of order dated 13/12/96 of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India and the purpose and objective underlying in Policy relating to DV Ban. This consideration be done within a period of 15 days from the date of this judgment. B. Till this is considered and final view thereon taken, the posting order dated 6/8/99 be not enforced. However, if, after due considerations and proper assessment of the entire case in the light of observations made above, the respondents still take the decision that petitioner is not to be posted to JAG Branch, they would be free to effect the posting order dated 6/8/99. ( 2 ) IT may be mentioned that the petitioner was not posted to JAG branch by the respondents in view of the DV Ban being imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 19/8/1993 which aspect has been discussed in detail in the judgment. It was argued that DV Ban order was not served upon the petitioner who came to know of the same only when he received his retirement order dated 17/2/1998. It is further submitted that this order was not served upon him and after his repeated requests copy of the letter stating imposition of provisional ban had been given to him on 10/1/2000. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondent could not act on the purported DV Ban order and deny him posting to JAG branch. ( 3 ) I do not find it to be a good ground for review of judgment dated 3/12/1999. Even as per the petitioner s own showing he came to know of the DV Ban when he was served with the retirement order dated 17/2/1998. The petition was filed much later in August, 1999 and in the writ petition, not only the petitioner had challenged the imposition of DV Ban but also argued that because of alleged DV Ban his posting to JAG branch cannot be stopped. This aspect has already been dealt with in the judgment dated 3/12/1999. The petition was filed much later in August, 1999 and in the writ petition, not only the petitioner had challenged the imposition of DV Ban but also argued that because of alleged DV Ban his posting to JAG branch cannot be stopped. This aspect has already been dealt with in the judgment dated 3/12/1999. No new material facts have been brought in the review application. A review of a judgment is maintainable only on the grounds mentioned in Rule 1 of Order XXXXVI I of the Code of Civil Procedure. No such case is made out in this review application. ( 4 ) STILL, to satisfy myself I had called for the record. Respondents produced the record. A perusal thereof shows that DV Ban order was passed on 19/8/1993 and copy thereof was sent to various departments. Record further reveals that by order dated 13/9/1993 petitioner s study leave had been terminated because of the said DV Ban. Therefore, petitioner cannot feign ignorance about this DV Ban as he must have come to know of the reasons because of which his study leave had been terminated in September, 1993 itself. Again when the petitioner was to be posted out of Adjutant General s Branch, by order dated 7/2/1997 DV Ban was partially relaxed to enable his posting out of the said branch. All these factors show that the petitioner had the knowledge of the orders of DV Ban immediately after the same was imposed. It is possible, as contended by the counsel for the respondents, that to enable him to file the present review application, the petitioner got the said DV Ban order served upon him from his immediate superior by letter dated 10/1/2000. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect. The review application and CM. 6010 of 2000 which are without any merit, are hereby dismissed.