Judgment :- This application is to review the Order passed in WP No.8776 of 1994 on 17.1.2002. The writ petition was filed against the Order, dated 16.3.1994, by the respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for promotion as a driver relaxing the additional qualification. This Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that relaxation is a discretion conferred on the authorities and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 2. In this application, it is stated that the regulations of the Corporation, prior to the amendment, did not prescribe the educational qualification for the post of a driver. The qualifications so prescribed then were that one must possess a valid driving licence and working knowledge in Tamil. By subsequent amendment in the year 1984, the regulations were amended. In WP Nos.10375/88 and 2179/84, this Court, by Order dated 2.7.1991, held that promotions of the petitioners therein should be done only under the old regulation and not under the amended regulation as they were fully qualified under the old regulation. The petitioner was holding the post of driver and was fully qualified to hold the post of driver as per the old regulation. Therefore, in view of the said decision of this Court, the petitioner is qualified to be considered to the post of the driver. No other point raised in this review application. 3. In the counter, it is stated that there is no ground for review of the judgment as it is not ambiguous nor there is any error on the face of the records. The grounds raised had already been considered in the writ petition itself. The Orders in WP No. 10375/88 and 2179/84 have no application to the facts of this case. Further, the petitioner was not holding the post of driver nor was qualified on the date of appointment to hold the post as per the old regulations. The petitioner was appointed as watchman/peon on 27.7.1979. He had studied upto sixth standard. The requisite qualifications for the post of driver as per the old regulation were that he must have working knowledge in Tamil, must possess a valid driving licence, and must have a valid driving experience of not less than five years. The petitioner was not holding any licence on the date of the appointment; he obtained the licence only in the year 1980. The petitioner was not holding any licence on the date of the appointment; he obtained the licence only in the year 1980. The petitioner was posted as basic servant and acted as stand-by driver only to relieve the regular driver, on payment of an allowance of Rs.10/-. The petitioner was accorded an opportunity to qualify for the post of the driver within one year. But, the petitioner failed to qualify himself; instead, he was pleading for relaxation of the educational qualification. The petitioner belongs to a different category and in order to be promoted to another category, he must qualify himself as per the regulations. The request made by the petitioner is contrary to the regulations. Further, there are no vacancies at present. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner herein relates to the merits of the case. The judgment cannot be reviewed on merits of the case. The scope of review is very limited and this ground will not fall within the scope of review. There is no error apparent in the Order nor there is any ambiguity in the order passed in the writ petition. The petitioner has argued the matter on the merits of the case. The petitioner can challenge the Order only by way of an appeal. The review application is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.