GIRDHARI LAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur dated 13-1 1-95.
(2.) IN brief facts of the case are that restoration application was allowed by the SDO against which revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner. This revision was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner against which present revision has been preferred by the revisionist, Vishwanath. Revisionist's Counsel is not present. I have seen the orders of the Additional Commissioner as well as the order of -the SDO. In this case restoration application was allowed and revisionist has appeared to put his case before the Court .concerned. Hence revision dismissed by the Additional Commissioner needs no interference. No illegality or material ir­regularity has been committed by the Court below.
(3.) REVISIONIST lit for admission and is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed.;