JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Vikash Chahar, Lt. Commander, Officer-In-Charge, Legal Cell, Indian Navy, is present in Court to instruct the learned Additional Solicitor General in connection with this appeal. On his instruction, it is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General before us that the respondent did not complete the training as per Clause-VI of the Advertisement relating to AA/109 Batch-Course commencing from February, 1997 simplified Recruitment Procedure requiring him to undergo training after joining the service for obtaining Diploma which is equivalent to Electrical/Mechanical/Aeronautical-Enggr. which is recognized by the Government of India. 2. It is submitted by him, that after resuming his services on the basis of the communication dated December 9, 2016, issued by the Executive Officer for the Commanding Officer, the respondent refused to go to his transferred post and prayed for his retirement from the services. He challenged the order of transfer, which is still pending. 3. It is the specific contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General, on instruction from the aforesaid officer, that he was not entitled for retirement in connection with the rules at that stage. 4. After considering the certificate dated February 20, 2001, issued in favour of the respondent no.1, by the Director, Commodore, Naval Institute of Aeronautical Technology, we find that the above respondent completed the Aircraft Artificer Course for four years theoretical and practical training as an Artificer Apprentice at Naval Institute of Aeronautical Technology from February 3, 1997 to February 3, 2001. The above certificate course is recognized to be at par Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian Polytechnic for the purpose of recruitment to sub-ordinate post and service under the Central Government in the appropriate field in terms of the Government of India, Ministry of Education & Culture(Department of Education), New Delhi, letter no.F.18-1/83-T-12 dated April 13, 1983. So, the first instruction of the aforesaid officer was far from true. 5. So far as the counting of period from the date of order of termination till the date of his duties in compliance of the order passed in the writ application, the learned Solicitor General, in his usual fairness, submits that his position has to be resumed as on the date of passing the order of termination. Therefore, we have no other alternative but, to take instruction of the above officer with pinch of salt. 6. Therefore, we have no other alternative but, to take instruction of the above officer with pinch of salt. 6. The hearing of this matter stands adjourned to enable the learned Additional Solicitor General to take instruction from the controlling authority of the respondent taking into consideration his stature in the services under the respondent in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. 7. We make it clear, that prima facie, to us that since he had completed training for a period of four years according to certificate dated February 20, 2001, no officer concerned with the training of the respondent has any role to play at this stage. 8. However, we are not directing the officer concerned to be present in person before us in view of the fact that we are assisted by the learned Additional Solicitor General in this case for enabling him to take proper instruction to save his valuable time and that of the Court. 9. Let this matter appear in the daily supplementary cause list on September 7, 2018 under the same heading.