(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1282 OF 1999 Ratan s/o. Bhagaji Mote, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Ex-Serviceman, at present Labourer, R/o. Krishnapur (Wadi), Post : Savangi (Harsool), Taluka and District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India, through the Department of the Ministry of Defence, Director General, Sicialment, Army Head Quarter, New Delhi. 2. The Dy. Company Commander Incharge, Records, Parashute Regiment, Training Centre, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore, Para Record, Pin Code No. 560 006. 3. Left. Colonal, Regiment Parashute, Training Centre, J.C. Nagar, Benglore Para Records, Pin Code No. 560 006. (2) 4. The Major, Parashute Regiment, Training Centre, J.C. Nagar, Benglore, Para Record, Pin Code No. 560 006. .. Respondents. 5. The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent no.5 through the Govt. Pleader, deleted. High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. ....................... Mr. M.M. Ambhore, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Respondent no.5 deleted. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25th June 1996, passed by the respondent no.3, thereby discharging services of the petitioner. The petitioner has (3) also prayed for a direction to the respondents, to reinstate him in the Armed Forces. 2. Mr. M.M. Ambhore, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner was serving in the Armed Forces and was on night duty, he had suffered some injury and only on account of the said injury, his services came to be discharged. 3. This position is disputed by the respondents by filing affidavit in reply. It is the specific case of the respondents, that in view of Rule 13(3) of the relevant Rules, under Item IV of the said Rules, a person is liable to be discharged from services, if he fails to qualify the mandatory qualifying test. It is submitted that though five chances were given to the petitioner, to qualify the said test, he has repeatedly failed in the test and in view of that, his services came to be discharged. This factual position is not disputed by the petitioner by filing rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. In view of the fact, that the petitioner has failed to qualify the test, in spite of giving several chances, we do not find any error on the part of the respondents, in discharging services of the petitioner. (4) 5. In that view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1282