JUDGMENT : 1. Seeking review of order dated 30.01.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 371 of 2009, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Stenographer-cum-Clerk on 10.01.1989. He claims that his service was confirmed on 03.05.1990. It is pleaded that the respondent-authority after an alleged verification of the service record of the petitioner cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as it was found illegal. It appears that an enquiry was conducted by the Regional Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and order dated 31.07.2002 was passed terminating the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2148 of 2004 challenging order dated 31.07.2002. The writ petition stood allowed by an order dated 10.07.2006 and the matter was remitted back to the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Jharkhand for making a fresh enquiry in respect of illegality and validity of the appointment of the petitioner. The respondent-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry vide order dated 15.03.2007 held that appointment of the petitioner was illegal and therefore, he cannot be re-appointed. The petitioner was denied payment of salary from 31.07.2002 and order for recovery of house rent was ordered against him. He again came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 371 of 2009 challenging order dated 15.03.2007 and for payment of salary etc. since 01.08.2002. The writ petition stood dismissed by an order dated 30.01.2009 holding that validity of appointment of the petitioner was the issue which was required to be examined pursuant to order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.2148 of 2004. The petitioner again came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3589 of 2009 challenging order dated 15.03.2007 which was previously challenged by him in W.P.(S) No.371 of 2009. It appears that after some arguments, on a prayer made on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition for filing a review petition, vide order dated 12.12.2014 the writ petition [W.P.(S) No.3589 of 2009] was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. The instant review petition has been filed purportedly in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3589 of 2009. 3. The instant review petition has been filed purportedly in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3589 of 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry in its order dated 15.03.2007 has arrived at a conclusion regarding legality of appointment of the petitioner which is palpably wrong. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in compliance of order passed by the writ Court in W.P.(S) No.2148 of 2004, the respondent authority was required to reinstate the petitioner in service and thereafter to afford all reasonable opportunities to him for defending himself, which was not at all granted to him. 4. A perusal of the order dated 30.01.2009 would disclose that the writ Court has taken note of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.2148 of 2004. The Court when found that the order of termination from service is passed on a technical ground, that is, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the respondent-authority was granted a liberty to adjudicate the illegality and validity of the appointment of the petitioner. Order dated 15.03.2007 passed by the respondent-Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry stands affirmed when W.P.(S) No. 371 of 2009 was dismissed by this Court. The plea raised by the petitioner is on merits of the order passed by the writ Court, which in a review petition is not open to be re-agitated. A review petition is not an appeal in disguise. No plea akin to the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C has been raised by the petitioner. May be the petitioner has something to show on merits of the order dated 15.03.2007, however, after dismissal of W.P.(S) No.371 of 2009, it is now not open to the petitioner to re-agitate the issue on merits of the matter in a review petition. 5. In the above facts, finding no ground to entertain the instant review petition, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer Letters Patent Appeal challenging order passed in W.P.(S) No.371 of 2009.