HIYAT KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Hiyat Khan, the petitioner in person and Sri Dinesh Kakkar learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. the Petitioner sates that he does not press his claim against respondents 3 and 4 and respondent no. 1 is a formal party. In view of this statement this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The Petitioner was a trained Machinist and he joined two year's training with respondent no.2. He completed one year's training and thereafter his training was terminated by the respondents. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.39148 of 1987 wherein this court set aside the termination order dated 19.9.1997 and permitted the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has completed one year's training and if he is permitted by respondents then he shall undergo one year's further training excluding the period from 19.5.1997 till the date of passing of fresh order. The judgement of this court dated 21.5.1998 is quoted below ;

(3.) The petitioner executed an agreement 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 September 1997. This order has been challenged on the ground that his training has been terminated without assigning any reason and justification. I have heard the petitioner in person and Sri Dinesh Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents.