ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present petition for the reliefs, delineated in paragraph 1 of the petition, and is being reproduced hereinbelow: "That this writ application is being filed for issuance of a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents to allows the petitioner to run the N.C.C. Unit in his school even as Care-taker and also for issuance of direction to the respondents to take fresh interview of petitioner and grant him commission as because petitioner has already passed pre-commission Cadet Course or grant any other relief or reliefs which petitioner deems to be entitled." 3. Mr. Din Bandhu Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Care-taker for running N.C.C. Unit at High School Bhabhua, and while the petitioner was still working as Care-taker of the N.C.C. Unit at the school in question, he was sent for training of Pre-Commission Course at Officers' Training School, Kamptee. Petitioner successfully completed the aforesaid training course, which was held from 13 August 2001 to 10th of November, 2001 and he was issued Pre-Commission certificate vide Annexure-2, under the signature of the competent officer of the National Cadet Corps ( in short N.C.C.). According to the case of the petitioner, despite successful completion of the training course by the petitioner, he has not been appointed/designated as Associate N.C.C. Officer (AN.O. in short). He further submits that once the petitioner has successfully completed training course, the respondent-authorities were obliged to appoint /designate the petitioner as AN.O. and petitioner was entitled to have all the benefits, after such designation/appointment on the post of AN.O. However, he has fairly stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has been transferred from the High School, Bhabhua in the district of Kaimur to Sarvodaya High School, Nokha in the district of Rohtas. He has also fairly stated that in the school where the petitioner is posted for the present, N.C.C. Unit has not been sanctioned. 4. Mr. A. Amanullah, learned Government Advocate NO.-4, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has stoutly opposed the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition. He has also fairly stated that in the school where the petitioner is posted for the present, N.C.C. Unit has not been sanctioned. 4. Mr. A. Amanullah, learned Government Advocate NO.-4, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has stoutly opposed the reliefs sought for in the present writ petition. By referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, he submits that it is true that the petitioner was appointed as Care-taker for running the N.C.C. Troop/Unit at High School, Bhabhua, originally for one year commencing from 1st of July 1999, but that period was again extended for one more year coming to an end on 30th June 2001. In his submission, though the petitioner was not validly selected by the duly constituted Selection Board for the training course, but due to certain clerical error the petitioner under went training course at Officers training school, Kamptee. However, he submits that since petitioner was not validly selected for the training course, therefore, he has not been designated / appointed as AN.O. 5. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that one of the prayer in the writ petition is that fresh interview of the petitioner should be conducted for his selection for the training course and for granting him commission for being designated as A.N.O. It is highlighted in paragraph 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit that not only once, rather twice the petitioner appeared before the duly constituted Selection Board and he was not found fit for grating permanent commission and as such he cannot be appointed / designated as A.N.O. In the same vein, it is urged that admittedly the N.C.C. Troop/Unit at High School, Bhabhua was placed under suspended animation by an order dated 23rd. September 2003 (Annexure-6) and therefore, no Unit is functioning in the school in question. Further, the petitioner is no longer posted in the School in question and has been transferred to some other school falling in another district of Rohtas. 6. After having heard the parties at length and considering the materials available on record, this court finds that though petitioner completed the Pre-Commission course held during 13th August 2001 to 10th Nov. Further, the petitioner is no longer posted in the School in question and has been transferred to some other school falling in another district of Rohtas. 6. After having heard the parties at length and considering the materials available on record, this court finds that though petitioner completed the Pre-Commission course held during 13th August 2001 to 10th Nov. 2001, and he was granted Pre-Commission certificate vide Annexure 2, but no statutory provision has been brought to the notice of this court that by virtue of grant of aforesaid certificate, the petitioner would be automatically appointed /designated as Associate N.C.C. Officer. From the pleadings of the parties, this court further finds that very selection of the petitioner for sending him to training course is not free from dispute. According• to the respondents, it was because of clerical error that petitioner was allowed to undertake training course and in order to regularize that selection, the duly constituted Selection Board conducted interview of the petitioner twice, but on the both occasions the petitioner was found unfit for the said training course. This court further finds that NCC Unit/Troop is no longer functioning in the school in question at Bhabhua and petitioner is no longer posted in theft school. Therefore, relief sought for on behalf of the petitioner that he may be permitted to run the N.C.C. Unit/Troop in the school in question even as a Care-taker cannot be granted. Despite sufficient opportunity given to Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, he has not been able to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned action of the respondents 7. For the reasons recorded above, this court finds itself unable to grant any relief to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case set forth above. Consequently this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 8. After the matter was finally dispose of, it is submitted that some legal dues of the petitioner is still there with the respondents for the period he had duly worked as a Care-Taker in the school in question at Bhabhua. The petitioner may file a detailed representation raising his grievances about non payment of the legal dues, before respondent no. 2 as also before respondent no. 4 within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner may file a detailed representation raising his grievances about non payment of the legal dues, before respondent no. 2 as also before respondent no. 4 within a period of four weeks from today. If such a representation is filed, then the authorities concern shall be obliged to dispose of that representation by speaking order. If it is found that petitioner is entitled to have any payment, then the same must be paid to him within three months from the date of presentation of the representation by the petitioner.