NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Solicitor General for the Army.

2. The dispute lies in a very narrow compass. The appellant Nihal was a young boy who had been selected for training in the Army Engineering College after having completed Intermediate. He had undergone one year’s training as required in the Officers’ Training Centre, Gaya and then, for further studies and training, was transferred to Military Engineering College, Kirkee at Pune. There he suffered with severe illness, later diagnosed as meningo-incephalitis. He was hospitalized. He recovered. But subsequently, he had severe seizures which required further hospitalization.

3. The case of the appellant is that though he was required to take rest in the post recovery period, that was not taken care of and in the name of military discipline, he was forced to undergo training. This led to certain disputes between him and allegedly his seniors. It is his apprehension that it is because of that, he had been victimized and ultimately ordered to be medically discharged. He had appealed without success. To the part of the allegation that there were seriou