ANIL DEV SINGH ( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties submit that the point involved in the writ petition is a short one and the petition may be heard and disposed of today itself ( 2 ) HAVING regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard and is being disposed of by this order. ( 3 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, seeks the following relief: "issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant commission to the petitioner as Second Lieutenant in the N. C. C. as he has completed the course of training. " ( 4 ) THE brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:- ( 5 ) THE petitioner who is an ex-serviceman, having served for 15 years as a Combatant in the Air Force, was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher with the Directorate of Education. Delhi Administration in November, 1985 and was posted at Government Co-educational Senior Secondary School, Chandpur, Majra Debbas, Delhi. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as a care taker w. e. f. November 1, 1989 by the Commanding Officer, Officers Training School, Kamptee District, Nagpur, the third respondent. The appointment was approved by the Dy. Director General, N. C. C. on February 14, 1990 and his period of appointment in the capacity of a Care taker was directed to continue from November 1,1989 to October 31,1990. On February 9,1990, the petitionerwas selected as a part-time National Cadet Corps Officer by the Dy. Director General,national Cadet Corps and was required to attend the forthcoming pre-commission course. However, the Principal of the above said school by his letter dated February 22, 1990 requested the Director General, N. C. C. to exempt the petitioner from undertaking the course as he had already served as a combatant in the Indian Air Force. However, this request of the Principal was not accepted and the petitioner was required to attend the pre-commission training course from August 6, 1990 to November 3,1991. Accordingly the petitioner participated in the pre-commission training course, but was recalled on October 18, 1990, before the course ended on November 3, 1990. The petitioner, therefore, returned to his unit on October 17,1990 instead of November 3, 1990, the date when the course was to finish. Accordingly the petitioner participated in the pre-commission training course, but was recalled on October 18, 1990, before the course ended on November 3, 1990. The petitioner, therefore, returned to his unit on October 17,1990 instead of November 3, 1990, the date when the course was to finish. It appears that the petitioner was returned to his unit on the ground that he was over age for the course in question. ( 6 ) THE petitioner basically challenges the action of the Director General, N. C. C. in recalling him from the course pre-maturely before November 3,1990. The effect of the return of the petitioner is that he has been denied his commission. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitionerwas wrongly returned as he was less than 38 years of age when he was selected for the course. He points out that in the case of two other officers, namely, Shri A. K. Poison and Shri R. P. Garg, they were allowed to complete the course, even though, they were overage when they were selected to undergo the course. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was over age for the pre-commission course as he had crossed the age of 34 years and therefore, he could not be permitted to undertake the course without the condition of age limit being waived by the appropriate authority Since the age limit was not waived, the petitioner was recalled from the pre-commission course. However, in the case of two other officers, namely, Mr. A. K. Polson and Mr. R. P. Garg, it is urged that they stand on a different footing as they had obtained N. C. C. c Grade Certificates and holders of such certificates can be granted commission straightaway up to the age of 42 years. Learned counsel pointed out that holders of NCC c grade certificates are treated at par with the Junior Commissioned Officers. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel on both sides. ( 10 ) THE question of relaxation of age limit of the petitioner for the pre-commission course was entirely in the discretion of the competent authority. When the exercise of discretion is not arbitrary and is bonafide, the same cannot be challenged. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel on both sides. ( 10 ) THE question of relaxation of age limit of the petitioner for the pre-commission course was entirely in the discretion of the competent authority. When the exercise of discretion is not arbitrary and is bonafide, the same cannot be challenged. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to Rule 21 (b) of the N. C. C Rules 1948 Commission can be granted to any person in the Junior Division without pre-commission training provided he has rendered service as an officer not below the rank of a Junior Commissioned Officer or a Viceroy s Commissioned Officer in the Army or a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy or a Warrant Officer in the Air Force or a Commissioned Officer in the NCC or has passed certificate b or c Examination of the NCC. ( 12 ) IN the case of two officers, namely, Shri A K. Polson and Shri R. P. Garg, it is not disputed that they were holders of c Grade Certificate of the NCC. Accordingly, they could be granted commission even without pre-commission training. However, as per the policy such officers were also being sent for pre-commission training. Reverting to the case of the petitioner, it is not disputed that he does not hold c Grade Certificate of the NCC. Therefore, the case of Polson and Garg is not similar to that of the petitioner. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.