- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19th September, 1997 whereby the Director of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, respondent No. 1, informed him that his training has been terminated.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respon dent No. 1 invited the applications for two years', course in mechanic. THE petitioner applied for such training course. THE In dian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) conducted the practical test and interview. THE petitioner was selected for the training course. He was issued a letter dated 19th September, 1996 intimating him that he has been enrolled as trainee mechanic and he is permitted to join the training course on the conditions mentioned therein. He was also required to execute an agreement. Some of the relevant condi tions mentioned in the letter are as fol lows:- 1. STIPEND : Rs. 800/- p. m. in the first year. Enhancement in the stipendary amount to Rs. 950/- p. m. could be considered on satisfac tory completion of first year of training. You will not be entitled to any other allowances or facility. 2. DURATION : THE training period will be for a period of two years with effect from the date of your joining. THE training can be terminated at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason. You will be required to work day and/or night as per directions of the authorities of the Institute. Please note that the above is not a job position. You are being enrolled only as a trainee. If the above terms and conditions are ac ceptable to you, you should report for training immediately alongwith the original certificates about your date of birth, educational/technical qualifications and experience etc. and a photo stat copy each thereof for verification by the Institute Authority, latest by 7th October, 1996 failing which the offer so made will stand con-celled automatically. You will be required to execute an agree ment on Non-Judicial Stamped paper worth Rs. 10/- at the time of your joining the training at the Institute. THE relevant form of agreement is enclosed herewith. " The petitioner executed an agree ment on 7th October, 1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure C. A. 4 to the counter- affidavit. The training period has been terminated by respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 19th Sep tember, 1997. This order has been chal lenged on the ground that his training has been terminated without assigning any reason and justification. I have heard the petitioner in per son and Sri Dinesh Kakkar, learned Coun sel for the respondents.
(3.) IT is not denied that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity by respondent No. 1 before terminating his training in the Institute. Sri Dinesh Kak kar, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that the conditions of training itself provided that the training can be terminated any time. He has also referred to the similar condition mentioned in the agreement executed by the petitioner which reads as under:- "the training pf the party of the first part may be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and without any previous notice. " In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the conduct of the petitioner was not proper as he remained absent without any sanctioned leave. He was fur ther given warning on different occasions. He has referred to a letter dated 3-2-1997 wherein it was stated that the petitioner is not entitled for absorption in service. He has disobeyed the orders of the Super visor. The Office Incharge again wrote let ters on 6-2-1997 and 8-7-1997 whereby similar warnings were given.;