Dr.Navis Jai Chithra v. The School Management Committee
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CMP Nos. 29027 of 2024 and 29032 of 2024 in W.A.Nos. 1654 of 2024 and 1655 of 2024 Dr.Navis Jai Chithra Senior Principal of RICE Mathakondapalli Model School, Mathakondapalli - 635114, Krishnagiri District Appellant in both petitions Vs The School Management Committee Rural Institute for community Education, Mathakondapalli Model School, Mathakondapalli-635114 Krishnagiri District and 6 Others ..
Respondents in both petitions For Appellant: Mr.V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for K.Jayasudha For Respondents. Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel For Mr.R.Kannan -R1 to R3 Mr.R.Neethi Perumal, GA -R4 & R5
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble S.S.Sundar J.) These petitions have been filed to modify the common order passed by this Court in W.A.No. 1654 of 2024 dated 07.11.2024,
clarifying that the enquiry may be continued from the stage it stopped before the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Late P.Shanmugam (Retired).
2. Mr. V.Prakash, learned senior counsel strenuously argued that the scope of the enquiry by the enquiry officer, as directed by this Court, should be extended to charge memos dated 15.05.2017 and 29.01.2018.
3. Per contra, Mr.P.Wilson, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has raised serious objections for the new enquiry officer to proceed with the equiry from where the enquiry was left by Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Shanmugam (Retd.). Learned senior counsel further submitted that the second charge memo is not the subject matter of writ appeals.
4. We have perused the impugned common order dated 07.11.2024. There is no specific direction in the impugned order to enlarge the enquiry to include the charge memo dated 29.01.2018, as argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Even the present petitions for modification do not indicate that the petitioner seeks an order from this Court to enlarge the scope of the enquiry to
include charge memo dated 29.01.2018.
5. This Court, having regard to the submissions made by either side, is of the view that the order sought to be modified cannot be read as it is being interpretated by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. In other words there is no clerical error. When the modification sought for is a relief by itself, we may consider the prayer in a review petition and not in a petition for modification.
6. A petition for modification cannot be filed when the scope of modification is to examine the correctness of the order. Therefore, with liberty to the petitioner to file review applications, these petitions seeking modification of the order is dismissed. No costs. (S.S.SUNDAR J.) (P.B.BALAJI, J.) 27-01-2025 ak
S. S. SUNDAR, J.
P.B. BALAJI, J.
ak CMP Nos. 29027 of 2024 and 29032 of 2024 in W.A.Nos. 1654 of 2024 and 1655 of 2024 27-01-2025