Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-At joint request and with consent of both the parties, matter has been finally heard and is disposed of at admission stage. 2. Contextual facts, in brief , are that Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) issued advertisement (Annexure-1) on 27.03.1999 for holding selection process of Cadre of Gentleman in Indian Army, for which petitioner being eligible applied for consideration of his candidature and in pursuance whereof he was called upon vide letter dated 21.03.2000 (Annexure-2) for interview on 26.04.2000 but he could not appear owing to his personal reasons; so again called for interview on 28.07.2000 vide letter dated 14.07.2000 and after interview, the Committee found him suitable and vide letter dated 010.2000 (Annexure-3), he was selected for short Service Commission Course (“SSC”) training whereof consists of two terms (1st and 2nd term). In first term (from 210.2000 to 31.03.2001) training, petitioner completed successfully. Thereafter he appeared in second term training commencing from 01.04.2001 to 01.09.2001 in course whereof failed to clear two events (I) Drill and (II) Current Affairs and International Relations, so was relegated on 31.08.2001 and was also asked to complete second term training commencing from 111.2001 to 02.03.2002 in mid whereof on 011.2001 he suffered from fracture and remained in hospital, for which he proceeded on sick leave up to 012.2001 and vide order dated 212.2001(Annexure-10 and 11) he appeared before Medical Board, which placed him in Low Medical Category and advised not to engage in long work/running/jogging and consequently he did not appear in any examination of 2nd term training. Meanwhile his father was informed vide letter dated 10.01.2002 (Annexure-5) that he has been warned of not having achieved minimum requisite standards; and vide subsequent letter dated 28.01.2002 (Annexure-6) to his father, it was conveyed that relegation warning has been given to him for tests. Before petitioner underwent tests and completed examinations in 2nd term training, movement order dated 15.02.2002 (Annexure-7) was issued directing him to proceed to his home. 3. According to petitioner, even after movement order (Supra), he completed tests in 2nd term training. Before petitioner underwent tests and completed examinations in 2nd term training, movement order dated 15.02.2002 (Annexure-7) was issued directing him to proceed to his home. 3. According to petitioner, even after movement order (Supra), he completed tests in 2nd term training. However, vide another letter dated 21.02.2002 (Annexure-8) his father was informed that petitioner was warned of having failed to maintain minimum requisite standards and finally vide order dated 01.03.2002 (Annexure-9) he was withdrawn from academy w.e.f. 21.02.2002 because of 2nd relegation as he failed to achieve minimum standards in Drill and advanced data processing Test (“ADPS”) in 2nd term training. Hence, this petition. 4. Ms. Ashish Joshi, Counsel for petitioner contends that impugned movement order dated 15.02.2002 (Annexure-7) having been passed in course of 2nd term training clearly indicates that the authority has taken decision with pre-determined mind to oust petitioner for one or the other reason as a result whereof , impugned decision of withdrawing him from Academy from 21.02.2002 vide order dated 01.02.2002 (Annexure-9) is not according to the policy and with approval of the competent authority. Counsel further urged that under Clauses 28, 29 and 30 of Instructions of Training, Cadet can be relegated only if failed to achieve requisite standards in any discipline/sphere of training viz., academic/general awareness subject, physical training, swimming, sports and military/service subject within stipulated time in absence whereof, very decision is in violation of clauses referred to and despite the fact that petitioner qualified in physical tests which were more difficult than Drill, such decision for relegation conveyed to Cadet is arbitrary and volative of principles of natural justice. 5. Counsel vehemently contends that more difficult physical tests like Battle Proficiency Allocation Test; Physical Proficiency Test and Physical Training consisting of Drill also, which are more arduous impelling force, efforts with stress than drill test, all, were qualified and that apart, mere Drill is otherwise a part of Physical Training; as such holding him disqualified in Drill test is an arbitrary decision and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As regards other test in which he was declared “failed” viz., ADPS which he earlier qualified in 2nd term final assessment test during training and was successful therein; as such it is unbelievable that Cadet who once qualified ADPS test, how could he be failed by securing Zero marks in subsequent examination. 6. Lastly, Ms. As regards other test in which he was declared “failed” viz., ADPS which he earlier qualified in 2nd term final assessment test during training and was successful therein; as such it is unbelievable that Cadet who once qualified ADPS test, how could he be failed by securing Zero marks in subsequent examination. 6. Lastly, Ms. Joshi contends that once petitioner was placed in Low Medical Category by Medical Board, he could be provided with reasonable opportunity to compete with other similarly situated Cadets participating in 2nd term training; as such he is entitled for one more opportunity to qualify papers in which he was declared failed in 2nd term final assessment test denial whereof has caused great hardship to petitioner and his employment for such arbitrary decision has been put to stake. 7. Respondents in their reply inter alia averred that initially petitioner joined SSC (NT)-72 on 210.2000 and was relegated to SSC (NT)-73 on 23.08.2001 as he failed in one General Awareness subject (Current Affairs and International Relations) and Drill in his 2nd term final assessment Tests and as also having Low Officer like qualities. After his relegation (Supra), he joined 2nd term SCC (NT)-73 course wherein he failed in Drill in 2nd term final assessment tests and so also in General Awareness (ADPS practical) during final re-test held on 21.02.2002 which resulted in his withdrawal as per policy and meanwhile was dispatched to home on leave pendente approval of his withdrawal by competent authority, which was accorded vide order dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure R-1). It has also been averred that throughout training of SCC course, petitioner consistently displayed a lack of regard for discipline, regulations and good military order despite it being pre-requisites of an Indian Army Officer. Moreover he was weak in academic, military and physical training subjects as also sloppy in his bearing, turnout and drill movements, for which was severally awarded punishments besides numerously counseled by his Platoon, Company and Battalion Commander, with several relegation warnings from faculty members for his failing to pass tests, inasmuch as both of faculty training battalions where he stayed, commented conversely to him despite it, he never changed in his approach and behavior rather continues to be lackadaisical excerpts of reports (details whereof contained in Annexure R 2, R3 and R4) rendered against him by faculty members have been referred to in writ petition. More stress has been laid in the reply stating that having utter disregard for discipline displayed by petitioner, his Company Commander initiated proceedings for his relegation on grounds of poor discipline on 13.02.2003 in process whereof also, he failed to qualify in re-test of Final Assessment test qualifying for his withdrawal owing to 2nd relegation for want of achievement to minimum standards laid down but his case for relegation was not processed further as is evident from minute sheet (Annexure R-5) because it would result in withdrawing the Cadet and further causing liability to pay entire cost of training and allied charges amounting to Rs. 3,46,972/-as undertaken in Para 4 of his Bond (Annexure R-6) at the time of joining SCC course and contrarily while taking humanitarian approach because of plea of petitioner and grounds of 2nd relegation leading to withdrawal, he was merely declared failed in Drill and ADPS (Practical) in order to avoid liability of repayment of cost of training and warnings for Officer Like Qualities were conveyed to him vide Annexure R-7, 8 and R-9. 8. Shri Sanjay Pareek, Counsel for respondents contends that umpteen opportunities were afforded to petitioner for appearing in 2nd term final assessment tests and the re-tests for Drill and ADPS were held on four different occasions reference whereof has been made in Para 7 of the reply but he failed in the re-tests also as a consequence whereof , there was no option available except to relegate him for having failed to achieve minimum standards and such decision of respondents was in consonance with Para 68 of Administrative Instructions issued by Army Headquarters and that apart, impugned decision even otherwise was in fact in his favour because had 2nd relegation taken place owing to his indiscipline attitude, he has to be saddled with liability to pay expenses incurred upon him in course of training of SCC course as per his own undertaking furnished by submitting Bond at the time of joining SSC Course, which amounted to Rs. 3,46,972/-; as such while taking humanitarian approach, no error was committed by respondents in arriving at the impugned decision in respect of his withdrawal and issuing movement order challenged herein. 9. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. 3,46,972/-; as such while taking humanitarian approach, no error was committed by respondents in arriving at the impugned decision in respect of his withdrawal and issuing movement order challenged herein. 9. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner was firstly relegated on 31.08.2001 and impugned decision relates to his 2nd relegation which took place as a result of his failing to achieve minimum requisite standards and failing to qualify in Drill and ADPS in 2nd term final assessment tests. Undeniably, petitioner appeared in Drill in 2nd term re-test in February, 2002 and prior to it, tests and re-tests in Drill and ADPS were also held for final assessment tests on 012.2001, details of which as stated in Para 7 of the reply are reproduced as under:- Dates of Test/Re-test Drill ADPS(P) (i) Final Assessment Test 08/12/2001 07-12/01/2002 (ii) 1st Re-test 12/01/2001 12/02/2002 (iii) 2nd Re-test 16/01/2002 21/02/2002 (iv) Mercy Chances 02/02/2002 and 12/02/2002 Since petitioner failed to achieve minimum requisite standards and to quality in 2nd term final assessment tests, decision was taken for his 2nd relegation and movement order was issued on 15.02.2002 (Annexure-7) and withdrawal order dated 01.03.2002 (Annexure-9). From material on record excerpts detailed above it also transpires that apart from failing to achieve minimum standards in 2nd term final assessment test, over all performance of petitioner even in 1st and 2nd term training was not appreciated by Officer under whom he underwent training as is evident from reports (Annexure R-1 to R-5) furnished by faculty members. A bare reading of Minute sheet (Annexure R-5) also makes it transparent that his case for relegation on grounds of indiscipline on his apart leading to withdrawal, being 2nd relegation on similar grounds processed would have certainly made him liable to meet out entire costs of living and allied charges incurred in course of training to him as undertaken in Para 4 of his bond furnished at the time of joining SSC course and it was only because of humanitarian approach taken by respondents by restricting it to relegate him leading to withdrawal. 10. 10. In bedrock of facts situation (Supra), I cannot be oblivious of fact that an Officer who joined the Army has to be very disciplined, physically fit and loyal besides dedicated and devoted to Army service and any lack in requisite basic qualities makes non-suit Officer in defence service and in instant case, apart from failing in Drill and ADPS (Practical) in 2nd term final assessment tests, over all performance of petitioner even in 1st and 2nd term training as depicted from Annexure R-1 to R-9 was not up to mark as commented by various Officers and faculty members under whom he underwent training. Thus viewed, I do not find any error in final decision taken by respondents while passing impugned orders and his withdrawal from SCC course. 11. As regards submission made by Counsel for petitioner in respect of taking decision impugned being allegedly pre-determined and so also in violation of Clauses 29 and 30 of Instructions of Training, and further submission with respect to evaluation of his assessment made declaring him failed by authorities allegedly being arbitrary decision, all are barren of merit for the reasons that umpteen opportunities were afforded to petitioner and on four different occasions, he appeared in 2nd term final assessment tests but disqualified therein; and lastly he was allowed to appear on 19.02.2002 in Drill, yet failed to achieve requisite minimum standard. In such circumstances, in my opinion, decision of respondents in no manner can be said to be arbitrary or being violative of principles of justice. 12. So far as reference made of Clause 30 is concerned, respondents placed sufficient material to show that 2nd relegation is on account of not qualifying in 2nd term final assessment test but his over all performance of training in 1st and 2nd term was not satisfactory and because of humanitarian consideration 2nd relegation has not taken place despite he being indiscipline and certainly that would have caused him to pay expenses incurred upon him in terms of Para 4 of his bond; as such also I do not find any error in the decision impugned. As regards evaluation of papers in which petitioner appeared and failed, in my opinion, in absence of any malice being imputed by petitioner, what has been assessed by the examiner cannot be permitted to re-assess by this Court merely because of his personal apprehension, particularly when there is no specific provision under law made for re-evaluation. 13. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith Stay Petition No. 2819/2002. No costs.