HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 27 of 2008 Prem Singh S/o Hark Singh Bisht R/o village Bhoor Maholia, Khatima District U.S. Nagar … Appellant Versus 3. Union of India Through the Defense Secretary 4. Commanding Officer, Jammu & Kashmir Rifles Training Center, Jabalpur (M.P.) … Respondents Mr. B.S. Khanka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind, Asst. Solicitor General for respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon. J.C.S. Rawat, J. Hon. V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral) Vide impugned judgment dated 21st February, 2008 the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed; hence this appeal. 2. 2. The appellant was enrolled in the Army in the Jammu and Kashmir Rifles as an ‘infantry Soldier’ at the Branch Army Recruitment Centre, Lucknow on 21st April, 1998 and was allotted Army No.13762254-M. He underwent his basic military training at J&K Rifles Recruitment Centre at Jabalpur. Apparently, the appellant could not successfully qualify in the military training at the aforesaid recruitment center. He was given three chances as well as adequate extra-coaching and despite his availing these three chances and extra- coaching and despite having appeared on three occasions, he could not pass the proficiency as well the efficiency tests. Since the appellant was not showing any improvement in his training and because of his continued poor performance he was discharged from the Army at the training stage itself. The Discharge was sanctioned by the Centre Commandant in terms of Army Headquarter’s letter dated 28.02.1986 as, in the opinion of the Centre Commandant he was unlikely to become an “efficient soldier”. 3. Aforesaid discharge order was challenged by the petitioner/appellant in writ petition No. 3187(S/S) of 2001 in this Court which as noticed at the outset was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the impugned judgment. 4. Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction or not, an issue which even though has been decided against the appellant by the learned Single Judge, should not detain us in disposing of this appeal because the fact remains that the appellant was discharged from the Army because he was found to be an inefficient soldier and he was unlikely to become an efficient soldier. This Court does not interfere in the functioning of the Armed Forces because, whether during or after training a soldier is an efficient soldier or is unlikely to become an efficient soldier is a matter which in this case had to be decided by the Centre Commandant. In the absence of any allegation of malafieds or any proof of any arbitrary action or any extraneous considerations, this Court has to treat the decision having been taken on objective criterion and by adopting means, which are fair. 5. The appeal is dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, J.) Dated 25.03.2008 LSR