IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10535 of 2008 Between: Dr. Anita K.Prakash W/o. K.Prakash Now Working As Principal, Moghal College of Engineering & Technology, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 MVSR Engineering college, Nadurgul, Saroornagar mandal, R.R.dist., Rep. by its Principal. 2 The director & Commissioner of Technical Education, Govt. of A.P., BRKR Bhavan. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the Office Note Ref.MEC/B/07 dt. 6-10-07, issued by the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violating the principles of natural justice and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10535 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as an Associate Professor, in the Department of Civil Engineering, in the 1st respondent College. The 1st respondent issued a memo, dated 30.8.2007, alleging that the petitioner created a scene outside the room of the Head of the Department, and accused the Head of Department, of promoting inefficiency. The petitioner was required to explain as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken. On a consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued Office Note, dated 6.10.2007, imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment, and observing that the release of annual increment and the confirmation of probation, would depend upon the decision that may be taken by the Management. The petitioner challenges the order. Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, and Rules made thereunder. The 1st respondent is a Private Educational Institution, which is not in receipt of any Grant-in-aid. The petitioner is not able to point out any violation, or invocation of any specific statutory provision, on the part of the respondents. The writ petition is not maintainable, because of the reason that the 1st respondent does not answer the description of ‘State’. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner, to work out her remedies, either by filing a suit, or by invoking the provisions of any other enactment. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 2nd May 2008 PAN