Judgment :- (1) Heard. (2) The petitioner was dismissed from service by the department, after enquiry for the alleged misconduct of pilferage, against which, a dispute was raised and the Labour Court confirmed the order of dismissal. Against the said order of confirmation, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition. Earlier this Court had dismissed the writ petition. Instead of preferring a writ appeal against the said order, the petitioner once again filed W.P. No. 7155/2009 wherein the petitioner tried to point out that as per the circular, if it is less than 3 red mark cases and if the petitioner had completed 240 days of service, a lenient view had to be taken and continue him in service. (3) What is being noticed is that referring to some documents the petitioner's counsel tried to make out that he had completed more than 240 days of service and there are only 2 red mark cases, as such he is entitled to maintain writ petition and the order passed earlier by this Court in W.P. No. 7155/2009 has to be reviewed. (4) The very filing of the second writ petition against the same order amounts to res judicata. Instead of preferring a writ appeal, the petitioner has chosen to file another writ petition after lapse of some time, as such review petition filed to review the order passed by this Court and also the Misc. Cvl. 12696/ 2009 filed for condonation of delay are dismissed. Petition dismissed.