ARUN ANAND Vs. DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (APPRENTICESHIP ADVISER), PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an apprentice by respondent No.2 in November, 1987. In or about the month of March, 1989, the petitioner avers that his apprenticeship was terminated without communicating any order. His representation against this termination bore no fruit. He has approached this Court through this writ petition.

(2.) It is claimed that the petitioner had been duly admitted, and had undergone training for almost two years. The respondents should not have taken the impugned action, without following the principles of natural justice.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred therein that the petitioner had not passed in the subject of Mathematics in the Matriculation Examination, and, as such, he did not fulfil the essential qualification for admission to the apprenticeship training in the trade of Draughtman (Civil). For this purpose reliance has been placed on the letter dated nil March 1988, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure Rl with the written statement,