The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the status of a trainee and an employee, emphasizing the application of principles of natural justice and the discretion of academic bodies in disciplinary matters.

( 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.

( 4 ) THE IIT, Kanpur, which has sophisticated laboratories, workshops and other facilities. Introduced a scheme, as an extension activity, to offer training opportunity to those who were qualified to receive such training. Selected areas/fields of training were identified, based on strength, capability and expertise available in house to offer such training. The scheme was conceived as a training scheme beyond the normal training given in industrial Training Institutes. The sole objective of the scheme was to provide exposure to the upgraded training facilities available in the Institute in a richer academic environment so that the persons so trained had a "value addition" to have a better chance in coping with the job market demand. The Institute also provided stipend to each trainee from its own budget/fund. This scheme was in addition to the normal teaching for the B. Tech. /m. Tech/m. Sc. Students or those who were registered for Ph. D. degree under the approved academic/research programme. An advertisement for enrolment as trainee (Machinist) was issued sometime in the year 1996. The respondent. Hiyat Khan, was selected for enrolment as a trainee (Machinist) and an order in this regard was issued on 18/19. 9. 1996. The order contained the following conditions :

"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. "

( 5 ) THE respondent joined the Institute as a trainee (Machinist) on 7. 10. 1996 and at the time of joining, an agreement was executed by him. In the said agreement, he was described as "party of the first part". Since the agreement has a bear