D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) By an order dated 5th September, 1998, the petitioner has been relinquished of his Commission. This order has since been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. N.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post next but despite his willingness, he has not been allowed to attend the refresher course and, thereby, he has been denied of his promotion. On the other hand, he has been relinquished from the Commission illegally. Therefore, the order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition should be set aside. He further contends that this order was passed since the petitioner had not returned a sum of Rs. 2,500 within 7th November. 1997, though it was so refunded on 9th November, 1997.
(2.) Mr. Uma Kant, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner did not perform his duties and that he did not attend the refresher course and had also informed by his letter dated 20th October. 1997, that he was unable to attend the third refresher course. Therefore, the petitioner cannot get any relief out of this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.;