IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8464 of 2009 Between: G.Radhakrishna S/o. Gopal NBKR Institute of Science and Technology, Vidyanagar, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 NBKR Institute of Science and Technology, Rep by its Correspondent, Vidyaanagar, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. 2 The Principal NBKR Institute of Scinece and Technology, Vidyanagr, Kota Mandal, Nellore District. 3 Sri Venkateswara university, Tirupathi, Rep by its Registrar, SVU Campus, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 Director of Technical Education, Sanketika Vidhya Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.JAGADEESHWAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not permitting the petitioner to join duty after expiry of suspension period, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri G.Jagadeeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1, which is admittedly, a private unaided educational institution. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain a writ petition filed against an action of a private person or an agency, unless such person or agency fails to carry out a public law duty or violates specific statutory provision defeating the legal rights of the aggrieved party. In the instant case, the petitioner alleges that by not taking him back into service, respondent No.1 has violated the provisions of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. The said provision envisages that no private educational institution is entitled to remove/dismiss or reduce in rank of its employees without prior sanction of the competent authority. In the instant case, no such orders have been passed by respondent No.1 and, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is confined to refusal of respondent No.1 to take him back into service after expiry of the suspension period. Such being the case, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the competent authority, which shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11081 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd APRIL, 2009. kvni