G.P.Mathur, J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.1999 of a learned single Judge by which Writ Petition No. 39548 of 1998 filed by respondent. Hiyat Khan, was allowed and the order dated 12.10.1998 passed by Director. Indian Institute of Technology. Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the IIT) terminating his training was quashed.
(2.) The respondent, Hiyat Khan, was enrolled by the IIT, Kanpur, as a trainee (Machinist) on 7.10.1996 for a period of two years. His training was initially terminated by order dated 19.9.1997. This was challenged by him by filing C.M. Writ Petition No. 39148 of 1997 which was allowed on 21.5.1998 and the order terminating his training was quashed. It was, however, left open to the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) to take appropriate action and pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the appellant served a notice dated 12.6.1998 upon the respondent to show cause why his training programme be not terminated. He was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, an order was passed on 12.10.1998 terminating his training. This was again challenged by him by filing C.M. Writ Petition No. 39548 of 1998 which has been allowed by a learned single Judge on 23.6.1999. The Director of IIT, Kanpur has filed the present special appeal, against the said order.
(3.) We have heard Sri S.N. Verma, learned senior counsel for the appellant. At the commencement of hearing, the respondent, Hiyat Khan, moved an application for permission to withdraw the vakalatnama of his counsel. Sri Dinesh Pathak, Advocate. Sri Dinesh Pathak was requested to be present in the Court who made a statement that he was willing to argue the appeal. However, the respondent. Hiyat Khan, made a statement that he wanted to argue the appeal himself and, consequently. Sri Dinesh Pathak, Advocate was permitted to withdraw his vakalatnama, We have heard Sri Hiyat Khan in person and have perused the record.;