Judgment Sushil Harkauli, C.J. ( 1. ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. There is a preliminary objection about maintainability of a writ appeal against an order passed in a review petition. It is not necessary to go into the question about such maintainability generally. It is not disputed that a writ appeal was maintainable against the original order passed in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, suffice it to say that if in review an order is passed or direction is issued, which direction was not contained in the order under review, it would amount to a fresh writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and would therefore be amenable to a writ appeal. ( 2. ) BY the impugned order dated 6-9-2011 passed in the Review Petition No.392/2011 the learned Single Judge has directed that the writ petitioner, who is respondent No.4 before us shall continue on the present post till his posting order is modified within 10 days and he is posted to a cadre post. This order does not appear to have been challenged by the said writ petitioner. So far as the present appellant is concerned, he was respondent No.4 in the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed by the original final order. However, in the review petition the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge observing that his posting shall be reconsidered and it shall be ensured that he is posted against a post as per the substantive post held by him and he shall not be allowed any undue benefit of posting in any higher post beyond his entitlement. ( 3. ) THE appellant is aggrieved against this observation of the learned Single Judge. ( 4. ) IT has been argued before us that the said higher post was filled-up by posting of this appellant on officiating basis, because these higher posts were lying vacant and employees of that level were not available to man these higher posts. IT has been argued that the persons of lower substantive post were, therefore, appointed to officiate on the higher posts. The present appellant, who belongs to senior scale of the lower substantive post, was also asked to officiate. IT has been argued that the persons of lower substantive post were, therefore, appointed to officiate on the higher posts. The present appellant, who belongs to senior scale of the lower substantive post, was also asked to officiate. IT has been argued before us that if the impugned observation of the learned Single Judge stands, it may result in person junior to the appellant being asked to officiate against the higher posts and the present appellant will stand excluded because of the said observation. The argument seems to have force. Accordingly, we modify the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the appellant will not be denied the benefit of officiation, if any person junior to him is required to officiate, and if the appellant is not otherwise disqualified or found unfit to so officiate. Appeal disposed off accordingly. C.c. as per rules. Appeal disposed of.