Judgment 1. The petitioner was a retired employee of Poultry Development Corporation. After his retirement from the said Corporation, he joined the first respondent private Polytechnic on 27.09.2010. 2. While the first respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner joined on 27.09.2010, the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has stated that he joined on 07.06.2010. However, the same is not very much relevant. 3. The employment of the petitioner after retirement at the age of 59 years is not a fresh employment. The date of birth of the petitioner is 17.10.1950. Therefore, he joined duty at the age of 60 years. After two years, the petitioner was relieved from service by the impugned order dated 28.03.2013 on the ground that he completed 62 years of service. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The first respondent has produced the Bye-laws of the first respondent Trust. The Bye-laws of the Board deals about the retirement and the same is extracted hereunder:- "Retirement The retirement age for the employees of the Trust and the institutions under its control shall be 58 years. In exceptional cases the Board of Trustees shall extend the period of service in extremely deserving cases by such period as the Trust Board may decide, but not beyond 60 years. The teaching staff will retire at the end of the academic semester/year if the date of retirement falls before that." 5. Therefore, the regular employees of the first respondent Trust shall retire at the age of 58 years and in exceptional cases, their services can be extended, but not beyond 60 years. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a regular employee and he joined at the age of 60 years, after serving in the Poultry Development Corporation. It was only re-employment and he cannot seek as a matter of right for continuation of his re-employment. The first respondent sought to relieve him after two years, stating that he completed 62 years of age. The petitioner cannot complain that some others, who were re-employed are retained even after 62 years. The first respondent is a private institution, against which, a writ petition would not lie, unless there is a statutory violation made by them. The petitioner is not able to show any violation of statutory provisions in passing the impugned order. 6. The petitioner cannot complain that some others, who were re-employed are retained even after 62 years. The first respondent is a private institution, against which, a writ petition would not lie, unless there is a statutory violation made by them. The petitioner is not able to show any violation of statutory provisions in passing the impugned order. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.