M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is studying in the final year B A, in the K. L. E. Society's S. N college, Rajajinagar Bangalore. He was enrolled as Cadet in Senior Division of national Cadet Corps in Regimental No. 11087. He obtained 'b' certificate. He asserts that he was declared as best under Officer during the year 1980-81. He was successful in obtaining 'o' grade certificate in Basic Course in Mountaineering as well as obtaining certificate attached to N. C. C. Personnel to regular Army. In the year 1980-81 he was enrolled and trained in N. C. C. but he could not take the examination because he was suffering from high fever and flu. In the result, he could not sit for 'c' certificate examination. In that circumstance he requested the officer Commanding the Karnataka battalion, Bangalore, to enroll him in the senior division for the academic year 1981-82 so that he could complete his 'c' certificate examination. But he was informed that under the Rules governing, the National cadet Corps rules, 1948, (hereinafter referred 1o as the rules) he could not be enrolled for the academic year 1981-82. In that circumstance, he has approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution feeling aggrieved by the refusal inter alia contending that under the relevant rules he has a right to be continued for the academic year 1981-82. ( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent has been deleted. The 2nd respondent is a mere pro-forma respondent being the Company Commander of the Battalion to which the petitioner once belonged. The 1st respondent has entered appearance through his counsel. The learned central Govt Standing Counsel appealing for the 1st respondent has drawn my attention to the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 1st respondent fn the said statement, the 1st respondent has pointe 1 out that the petitioner had in fact completed his attendnce in the 4th year and had deliberately avoided taking the examination and therefore having regard to the rules governing the initial recruitment and extension of service under the rules, he could not be enrolled for the year 1981-82. However, it is made clear that the petitioner has sufficient attendance in the 4th year and that he is free to take the examination whenever it is conducted after making appropriate application to the authorities within the time prescribed ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Mr. However, it is made clear that the petitioner has sufficient attendance in the 4th year and that he is free to take the examination whenever it is conducted after making appropriate application to the authorities within the time prescribed ( 3 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Veerabhadrappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, insists that this court should examine the language and scope of rules 12 and 13 of the rules and give the reliefs prayed for. Rule 12 of the rules is as lollows:"12. Period of enrolment. (1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of these rules, every person accepted for enrolment in the senior Division army Wing shall be enrolled for a period of two years and a person accepted for enrolment in the Senior division Air Wing or the Senior Division Naval Wing shall be enrolled for a period of three years. (2) The period specified in sub- rule (1) shall commence from the date of enrolment under rule 11. "this rule does not give any problem in deciding its scope or interpretation of its language. Its meaning is plain and its language is simple. Rule 13 of the rules is as follows:"13. Extension of service:- (1) A cadet of the Senior Division may be permitted to extend his enrolment for a period of one year at a time upto maximum of four years of total service. (2) A cadet of the Junior Division may be permitted to extend his enrolment for a period of one year upto a maximum of three years total services. " ( 4 ) FROM the language of rule 13 of the rules, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously argued that the period of 4 years mentioned in the rule should be reckoned from the year in which he applied for extension of service. I do not think that would be the correct approach to make in understanding that rule. As seen from rule 12 of the rules, the initial period of national cadet corps service for the students is two years in the case of Army cadets and three years in the case of naval and Air Force cadets. I do not think that would be the correct approach to make in understanding that rule. As seen from rule 12 of the rules, the initial period of national cadet corps service for the students is two years in the case of Army cadets and three years in the case of naval and Air Force cadets. The reference to extension of enrolment for a period of one year at a time upto a maximum of 4 years of total service must necessarily include both the service in the initial recruitment as well as the service after extnsion is granted. If it is so understood, then a student enrolled as an army cadet is entitled to two years extension and not more than that, while the Air force and Naval Cadets will be entitled to only one year's extension. It s to achieve this dual purpose that the word 'total service' is used in rule 13 of the rules. I, therefore, do not think the learned Counsel is correct in contending that the petitioner has a legal right for being enrolled once again for the year 1981-82 having completed the 4 years of service under the N. C. C. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, it is open to the respondents to allow the petitioner to take examination for which he has put in required attendance if his appplication is received by it in time. ( 6 ) WITH these observations, this writ petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .