Judgment :- M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. This review application has been brought forth by the petitioners seeking to review the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.1334 of 2009. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that 3 : 1 ratio is not a water tight compartment between the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers for promotion to Assistant Divisional Engineer; that if there is any promotional vacancy in the event of non-availability of qualified and suitable candidates from the category of Junior Engineers, it can be filled by giving promotion to the Assistant Engineers who are qualified; and that apart from that, the Apex Court has held in a decision reported in (1977) 1 SCC 308 that the said rule permits application or invoking of 3 : 1 ratio only when qualified and suitable candidates are available, and in the absence of such candidates, the said 3 : 1 ratio shall not be followed, and hence the order has got to be reviewed. 4. After hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that this application does not carry any merit whatsoever.As regards the contention that 3 : 1 ratio is not a water tight compartment between the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, this Court had already considered the same in the order under review taking into account the necessary Rules in that regard. 5. As far as the decision relied on by the petitioners Counsel and reported in (1977) 1 SCC 308 , is concerned, this Court has relied on the recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2007 (5) SCC 535 (SHAILENDRA DANIA V. S.P. DUBEY) in its judgment since the principle laid down by the Apex Court in that case is squarely applicable to the present factual matrix of the case. 6. For the reasons stated above, this review application has no legs to stand, and accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself.No costs.