1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 09.04.2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.416 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 R. Latha : Appellant Vs. 1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Theni District, Theni. 2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Bodi, Theni District. 3. The Secretary, School Committee, R.P.Middle School, Bodi Meenakshipuram, Theni District. : Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.03.2010 of the learned Single Judge in Review Petition (MD)No.8 of 2010 filing to review the order dated 28.8.09 in W.P (MD) No.87 of 2009 under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned order in Moo.Mo.No.5054/A5/2008 dated 12.12.2008 on the file of the Respondent 1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent 1 to appoint a Special Officer to look after the Management of the third Respondent School. For Appellant :: Mr. D. Sadiq Raja For Respondents 1 & 2 :: Mr. R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order dated 18.03.2010 passed in Review Petition (MD)No.8 of 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Initially, the appellant herein has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.87 of 2009 before this Court with the following prayer:- ".....to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ or direction in the nature of writ to call for the records in the Impugned Order in Moo.Mu.No.5054/A5/2008 dated 12.12.2008 on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to appoint a special officer to look after the management of the third respondent school and pass such further or other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper ......" 3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 28.08.2009 and as per the said order, the parties agreed to work out their remedies in the Civil Suit filed in O.S.No.14 of 2007, which is pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni and the parties also agreed to abide by the final decision passed in the above said suit. However, as against the said order, the petitioner has preferred a Review Petition (MD)No.8 of 2010 and by an order dated 18.03.2010, the same was dismissed in the following terms:- "2. Now, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.87 of 2009 filed this review petition stating that her name has to be included in the School Committee. When the writ petition was heard, this was not pressed and the parties agreed on the terms and with the consent of parties, the common order was passed. 3. Hence, the same cannot be reviewed and it is open to the review petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs". As against the said order, this Writ Appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly admits that when the said writ petition was filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 12.12.2008, whereby certain persons were inducted in the school committee and the same was approved, there was no prayer at all for the inclusion of the appellant / petitioner's name in the School Committee. So, on that ground, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Review Petition. We do not find any infirmity in the said order. Without any prayer for the inclusion of the appellant / petitioner's name in the School Committee, certainly the Court cannot examine the said issue. 5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that since the appellant is the senior most teacher of the school, when an order dated 12.12.2008 has been quashed, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 automatically, her name has to be considered for inclusion in the School Committee. But, we are not inclined to accept the said argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. When there is no prayer to that effect, the Court cannot examine the said issue. The writ petition was filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order of the first respondent dated 12.12.2008 and to appoint a Special Officer to look after the management of the third respondent school. While examining the said issue, a decision could be arrived at as to whether the School Committee was formed in accordance with the Rules or not, but when there is no prayer, the issue of inclusion of the name of the appellant / petitioner in the School Committee need not be examined. Consequently, the said issue was not examined. Apart from this, by the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both parties, the writ petition was disposed of and as such, now the appellant / petitioner cannot come back and seek other reliefs. In this Writ Appeal, exactly what the appellant intends to do, is to expand the scope of the writ petition, which cannot be permitted. Consequently, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. 6. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Theni District, Theni. 2. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Bodi, Theni District. +1 CC to Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Advocate (SR.No.13588) W.A.(MD)No.416 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 09.04.2011 Dpn/- NSV/2.5.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/