Judgment By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2200 March 2006, passed by respondent No.2, discharging the petitioner from the Indian Army. The petitioner has further sought quashin.9 of the Army letter No. A 120335 I 1 I GS I MT5 dated 17th March 2003. Lastly, the petitioner has sought his reinstatemer as Recruit I Clerk (G.D.) of Training Battalion - 1, Bombay Engineer Group and Centre, Kirkee, Pune -3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed by the parties. 3. The petitioner through Almora Branch Recruiting Office appeared for physical test on 19-11-2004, and qualified the same where after, he was medically examined on 20th November 2004, and found fit. On 28-11-2004, a written test was held for recruitment of Clerk (G.D.) in the Indian Army. Vide letter dated 5th January 2005, the Branch Recruiting Office informed the petitioner that he has passed the entrance examination and he was required to complete certain formalities like filing the original educational qualification certificates and other certificates for verification. Petitioner's claim is that he was enrolled in the Indian Army on 12-03-2005, and was sent to Bombay Engineer Group and Centre, Kirkee, Pune -3 for training as Recruit I Clerk (GoO.) from Almora, where he joined the Centre on 14th March 2005. However, after completion of six months Basic Military Training, a Proficiency Aptitude Test which was conducted during the training period, the petitioner was informed that he had not qualified the same and vide impugned order dated 22nd March 2006, the petitioner was discharged from Army w.eJ. 31st March 2006. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that his discharge from Army is illegal, as he could not have been discharged merely for the reason that he could not qualify the Proficiency Aptitude Test. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was recruited through Soldier Board, Almora against a vacancy of Clerk (G.D.) and was sent for training to Bombay Engineer Group and Centre, Kirkee for Basic Military Training. 4. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was recruited through Soldier Board, Almora against a vacancy of Clerk (G.D.) and was sent for training to Bombay Engineer Group and Centre, Kirkee for Basic Military Training. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner could not qualify the Proficiemcy Aptitude Test (hereinafter referred as PAT) and in terms of letter No. AI 20335 11 I GS I MT 5 dated 17th March 2003, the petitioner was liable to be discharged as there was no vacancy available for him for re-mustering. Defending the action under the Army Rules, 1954, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner obtained only 22 per cent marks in the PAT held on 11th June 2005, while the minimum marks required were 40 per cent. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the petitioner was discharged from service under Army Rule 13(3)(iv) for he was 'unlikely to become an efficient Soldier' as he failed in the PAT. 5. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here that Clause (iv) of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954, which empowers a Commanding Officer to discharge a Recruit enrolled under the Army Act but not attested, on certain grounds which includes 'Recruits who are considered unlikely to become efficient soldiers'. Admittedly, the petitioner did not qualify the PAT conducted by the Centre where the petitioner was undergoing Basic Military Training. Annexure CA -1 to the counter affidavit is the copy of the instructions issued by the Directorate General Military Training, Army Headquarters, New Delhi vide letter No. A/20335/1/GS/MT 5 dated 17th March 2003, which provides that Recruit Clerks enrolled in the Army through Recruiting Organization and Regiment/Training Centres are required to qualify separate written test to assess their suitability to be enrolled as Clerks. Clause (d) of Para -7 of said letter containing instructions further provides that those recruits who did not qualify the PAT should be re-mustered or disposed off as per existing instructions in the subject. In Para-20 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that all the possibilities were explored to re-muster the petitioner in any other trade, but it was not possible as there was no vacancy. 6. In Para-20 of the counter affidavit it has been specifically stated that all the possibilities were explored to re-muster the petitioner in any other trade, but it was not possible as there was no vacancy. 6. In view of Rule 9 read with Rule 11 and Rule 13 of the Army Rules, 1954 and the instructions contained in letter dated 17th March ~003, there appears no illegality in the impugned order dated 22nd of March 2006, whereby the petitioner was discharged w.e.f. 31-03-2006. Though, by amendment. the petitioner has added a relief in the writ petition that the instructions dated 17th March 2003 (Annexure CA -1 to the counter affidavit) be declared illegal, but no ground whatsoever has been mentioned in the writ petition as to why said instructions can be said to be illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Section 15 of the Army Act, 1950, and submitted that the discharge of the petitioner is in violation of said Section. A plain reading of Section 15 makes it clear that it bars a Recruit from claiming discharge on the ground except the one admissible to him under the Rules. It does not restrict the power of the respondents. Rather, Clause (iv) of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 13 of the rules framed under the Army Act, 1950, empowers the respondents to discharge the Recruit where he is found unlikely to become an efficient soldier. On behalf of the petitioner a confusion is being created as to fitness for enrolment with the fitness of being efficient soldier. In the opinion of this Court the two are different, and fit for enrolment does not mean an 'efficient soldier'. 7. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any force in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.