JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has been discharged from the Army. There are as many as four adverse entries against him, two of them are of 1993 and the earlier were of 1984. In the entry of 1993, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is an undesirable soldier. This entry has been given by his superior officer. In my opinion, this Court should not ordinarily Interfere in Army matters as that undermines the discipline of the army.
3. Sri Tej Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nor Singh Patnaik v. State of Orissa, 1996 Lab IC 1552. In my opinion, this decision Is wholly distinguishable because this decision does not pertain to army matters. In my opinion, ordinarily in army matter, there should not he any Interference by this Court as that undermines the discipline of the army. Petition is dismissed.