JUDGMENT : Prayer: Petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 10.4.2015 passed in W.P.No.8625 of 2015. 1. This application has been filed against the judgment dated 10.4.2015 passed in W.P.No.8625 of 2015. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 26.2.2014, with a direction to reappoint him to the post of Night Watchman in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, from 2.7.2012. 3. The facts taken note by the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition show that, by proceedings dated 15.12.2011 of the second respondent, the petitioner was temporarily selected for the post of Night Watchman and posted at the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham. The petitioner later on tendered resignation on 6.7.2012, but the resignation was withdrawn by the petitioner vide letter dated 2.8.2012. By proceedings dated 24.8.2012, the withdrawal of the resignation was permitted with a direction to the petitioner to join the post. However, the petitioner did not join the post, rather submitted a letter dated 17.12.2012 expressing his unwillingness to join the post. Therefore, vide proceedings dated 9.1.2013, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 1.7.2012. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted an application on 7.1.2014 to reappoint him in service. The prayer aforesaid was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 26.2.2014, which was upheld by the Division Bench by the judgment dated 10.4.2015. 4. The only ground taken to seek review is the illness of the petitioner's father, but the averments therein are not supported by any document. Further, when the petitioner expressed his unwillingness to join the duty consequent to the withdrawal of the resignation tendered by him, he cannot claim reappointment as a right, that too, after expiry of a period of two years. After considering the entire factual matrix, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. 5. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record so as to allow the review. The jurisdiction of the court in review petition is quite limited. After considering the entire factual matrix, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. 5. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record so as to allow the review. The jurisdiction of the court in review petition is quite limited. Review may be permitted on three specified grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. In the case on hand, none of the aforesaid grounds attract. 6. In view of the above the review application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.