JUDGMENT 1. This review petition is directed against the order dated 24.07.2012, dismissing the writ petition filed against the order dated 29.05.2002, reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Inspector. 2. The petitioner joined the Co-operative Department in the State of Tamil Nadu as temporary Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies on 06.12.1985. The service of petitioner was regularized on 27.07.1998. The petitioner was issued charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules, therefore, his name was not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Senior Inspector. 3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4648 of 1996 before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for directing the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner dated 01.07.1996 for promotion to the post of Senior Inspector without reference to the pending departmental proceedings. 4. Even though such petition was not competent, as the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal could not have issued such direction to consider the person for promotion against the service rules, but the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by way of interim order directed the respondents to dispose of the representation for promotion by not taking note of the pending departmental enquiry. 5. It was in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, that name of petitioner was ordered to be included in the panel of Junior Inspector, Co-operative Societies fit for promotion as Senior Inspector as on 01.05.1995 without reference to and without taking into account the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b). This order was however subject to the review on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 6. The disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) ended in punishment of stoppage of increment of three years with cumulative effect. Keeping in view the order of punishment, the order was passed reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Inspector. 7. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order, filed W.P.No.8356 of 2007, which was ordered to be dismissed, in view of the admitted facts, that the petitioner was considered for promotion under the interim order passed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which on the face of it was illegal and further the order of reversion was passed, as his promotion was subject to review after the conclusion of enquiry, which ended in holding petitioner guilty of charges. This Court therefore finding no merit in the writ dismissed it. 8. This Court therefore finding no merit in the writ dismissed it. 8. Now, the review petition has been filed, on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of record, requiring review of the order. 9. The review is filed on the ground that, though subsequent facts were known to the petitioner at the time of filing of writ petition, it was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Court to arrive at correct conclusion, nor any amendment of petition was sought to plead the subsequent events. 10. This stand itself is a good enough to reject the review petition, as it is not open to seek review of the judgment passed by the Court on the material, which, though available and was within the knowledge of petitioner, was not brought to the notice of the Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the order has been passed on the premises that the appeal against the impugned order was pending, whereas in appeal, penalty of stoppage of increment was set aside on 20.04.2012. 12. This also cannot advance the case of petitioner, as the petitioner had not filed any application for amendment of main writ petition to plead subsequent event. 13. In any case, O.A.No.3288 of 2002, which was renumbered as W.P.No.8356 of 2007, was to challenge the order of reversion, passed in pursuance to punishment awarded to petitioner, therefore writ was rightly dismissed, as the subsequent event could not entitle the petitioner to challenge the order, but could give opportunity to approach the authorities to reconsider the matter in view of order passed in appeal. 14. It may also be noticed here, that the petitioner took the benefit of interim orders, it was for that reason, that the petitioner did not take steps to bring to the notice of this Court, that in enquiry penalty was imposed, nor he took any steps to bring to the notice of this Court about the order passed in appeal. This only shows, that petitioner was not fair in approaching this Court. 15. Therefore, it can be safely said that the petitioner misused the process of Court in getting interim orders and thereafter not appraising Court of final orders passed. 16. This only shows, that petitioner was not fair in approaching this Court. 15. Therefore, it can be safely said that the petitioner misused the process of Court in getting interim orders and thereafter not appraising Court of final orders passed. 16. As already noticed above, the ground raised for review cannot be said to be a good ground to review the order, passed by this Court, as it is admitted case that facts pleaded in review, though within the knowledge of petitioner, were not brought to notice of this Court. 17. No merit. Dismissed. 18. No costs.