JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Petitioner approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 13133/1993 contending that the rejection of his application for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on the ground that he is not of required height was wrong. After the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner fiied a Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA No. 526/1995, which was dismissed as withdrawn with the following observations: "The report of the Civil Surgeon regarding the height of the appellant, in the light of the order dated 30.1.96, has been produced. From the report, it appears that the height of the appellant was measured and it was found to be 162.56 cms. In that view of the matter, Mrs. Sangeeta Jha, learned Counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn." 3. Thereafter, CWJC No. 7230/2004 was filed for the same relief and the learned Judge rejected the same. Against the rejection of the same, the petitioner approached directly to the Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court rejected the appeal. Thereafter, this appeal was filed. It is also revealed that the petitioner filed yet another writ petition, being CWJC No. 7547/1996, for the selfsame purpose, which was also withdrawn. After the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner before the Honble Supreme Court was dismissed, the petitioner filed LPA No. 246/2006 before this Court, which resulted into the judgment under review. 4. The Division Bench at the time of disposal of the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal considered the dismissal of the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, which was not specifically mentioned in the Memo of Letters Patent Appeal, and found that successive filing of the writ petitions is only an abuse of the process of the Court and rejected the appeal. At that time, the petitioner-appellant submitted that a certificate of fitness may be granted under Article 134A of the Constitution of India for taking the matter to the Honble Supreme Court and till then the order recorded by the Division Bench that day may be stayed, but the Division Bench rejected such submissions, which are well also mentioned in the judgment under review. 5. According to the petitioner, the judgment under review is erroneous in law. 5. According to the petitioner, the judgment under review is erroneous in law. If the judgment under review is erroneous in law, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal. A review petition cannot be equated to a petition for rehearing of the matter afresh as it cannot be considered as an appeal or a revisional proceedings. 6. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that no grounds necessitating review of the impugned judgment are made out. 7. This Civil Review is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, considering the fact that when the application of the petitioner was rejected, he studied Law and became an Advocate and, it has been further submitted that the petitioner is finding it difficult 1o pay the costs awarded due to financial crisis, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of case, we deem it fit to exempt the petitioner from the liability of paying the costs of Rs. 15,000/-, as awarded by the judgment under review. We order accordingly.