L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Commissioner and director of School Education, 2nd respondent herein, to issue necessary orders under section 24 of the A. P. Education Act, recognising the 2nd petitioner as the convenor of the Education Committee of the Convention of the Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars (for short the convention ) a declaration is also sought to the effect that the enquiries directed to be held in pursuance of the orders of this Court in various writ petitions have become unnecessary in view of the expiry of the term of the 3rd respondent as convenor as well as to set aside the orders dated 5-9-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent. The necessary facts are briefly stated as under:- ( 2 ) THE convention is a Christian organisation, having its activities in the northern coastal districts of the State of andhra Pradesh. Running educational institutions is one of its activities. It functions through several committees. As far as educational matters are concerned, they are conducted through Education Committee. ( 3 ) ONE Mr. S. M. Kantharaju has been elected as the President of the convention in the year 1992 and thereafter in the year 1997, for a term of 5 years each. His election as President in the year 1992 was the subject-matter of OS no. 51/1995, on the file of the Additional district Munsif, Visakhapatnam, wherein the election was upheld. In the year 1997, mr. Kantharaju was elected as the president and the 3rd respondent herein was appointed as the Convenor of the education Committee. From 1998 onwards, mr. Kantharaju and the 3rd respondent appear to have parted ways. ( 4 ) IT was stated that one Mr. P. Paulus was said to have been appointed in the place of 3rd respondent. That gave rise to spate of litigation. The appointment of a person as Convenor needs to be recognised by the Government. The convenor shall have the power to appoint the Correspondents to various Institutions, which are said to be about 200 in number. Since the claim of Mr. Paulus was not accepted, he carried the matter in revision to the 1st respondent. The Government rejected the revision through order G. O. Rt. No. 1113 dated 31-8-1998. Challenging the said G. O. Rt. No. 1113, Mr. Paulus filed wp No. 25865/98. One Mr. Since the claim of Mr. Paulus was not accepted, he carried the matter in revision to the 1st respondent. The Government rejected the revision through order G. O. Rt. No. 1113 dated 31-8-1998. Challenging the said G. O. Rt. No. 1113, Mr. Paulus filed wp No. 25865/98. One Mr. B. Soloman raju filed WP No. 27028/98 and another by name Y. Appa Rao filed WP No. 27447/98 challenging the G. O. Rt. No. 1113. Both of them claimed to be Presidents of the convention. The writ petition were dismissed by a Division Bench of this court through order dated 19-4-2000. It became final- ( 5 ) THE 1st petitioner herein as well as Mr. Paulus filed WP No. 14287/2000 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to recognise Mr. Paulus as the Convenor of the Education Committee. The writ petition was disposed of through order dated 24-10-2000, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the letter dated 2-2-2000 addressed by the 1st respondent stating that Mr. Paulus has been appointed as the Convenor; and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, duly giving an opportunity to the affected parties. ( 6 ) BY the time the orders in WP no. 14287/2000 was passed, the 2nd respondent herein, through his proceedings dated 29-7-2000, intimated the concerned district Educational Officers that the 3rd respondent was continuing as the Convenor and against the same, the 1st petitioner and Mr. Paulus preferred a revision to the 1st respondent where an order of stay was granted. In view of the orders passed in WP. No. 14287/2000, the stay was vacated without notice to them. Therefore, they filed WP No. 22054/2000. That writ petition was dismissed. Purporting to be acting in pursuance of the directions of this Court in WP No14827/2000, the 2nd respondent passed orders dated 2-1-2001 in favour of the 3rd respondent herein. The 1st petitioner herein and Mr. Paulus challenged that order by filing WP No. 2397/2001. They also preferred WA No. 473/2001 against the order in WP No. 22054/2000. The said WA was disposed of by observing that since WP No. 2397/2001, challenging the order dated 2-1-2001, was pending, and the writ petition be disposed of, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order in WP No. 22054/2000. They also preferred WA No. 473/2001 against the order in WP No. 22054/2000. The said WA was disposed of by observing that since WP No. 2397/2001, challenging the order dated 2-1-2001, was pending, and the writ petition be disposed of, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order in WP No. 22054/2000. ( 7 ) IN WP No. 2397 of 2001, a finding was recorded that the order dated 2-1-2001 passed by the 2nd respondent was violative of principles of natural justice and the same was set aside. Consequently, the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh. ( 8 ) ON 28-8-2002, the 1st respondent issued a Memo taking into account the fact that the term of the 3rd respondent expired by 2-1-2002 and, as such, he has no legal right to function as the Convenor. In that view of the matter, he directed the concerned District Educational Officers to maintain status quo as regards appointment, transfer and promotion of the teaching and non-teaching staff in respective institutions. ( 9 ) A new claimant by name Mattar rajakara Rao, claiming to be the secretary of Convention surfaced, and he filed WP no. 7067/2002 seeking a declaration that the continuance of the 3rd respondent herein beyond his five years term was impermissible. The writ petition was dismissed holding that till any other person is recognised as the Convenor of the education Committee, the 3rd respondent herein shall be entitled to continue. ( 10 ) CLAIMING to be acting in accordance with the order in WPNo. 7067 of 2002, the 1st respondent, through Memo dated 5-9-2002, cancelled the Memo dated 28-8-2002. Challenge to this memo is one of the prayers in this writ petition. ( 11 ) THE 1st petitioner claims that after the expiry of the term from 1997-2001, elections were conducted from 14th to 16th January 2002, wherein Mr. Kantharaju was elected as President. It is stated that initially the Executive and Finance Board (for short the Board ) of the Convention appointed one Mr. Paulus as the Convenor and on submission of his resignation, the 2nd petitioner herein was appointed as convenor. The petitioners state that the factum of the 2nd petitioner having been appointed as Convenor was brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, through letters dated 2-8-2002 and 7-9-2002, and inspite of the same, no action has been taken. Paulus as the Convenor and on submission of his resignation, the 2nd petitioner herein was appointed as convenor. The petitioners state that the factum of the 2nd petitioner having been appointed as Convenor was brought to the notice of respondents 1 and 2, through letters dated 2-8-2002 and 7-9-2002, and inspite of the same, no action has been taken. They contend that once the term of the 3rd respondent has finally expired in january, 2002, the enquiries directed by this court to be held by the 2nd respondent, initially through the orders in WP No. 14287/ 2000 and thereafter in WP No. 2397/2001 have become superfluous. In effect, they seek directions to recognise the 2nd petitioner herein as the Convenor. ( 12 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit. The gist of the counter-affidavit is that there was uncertainty as to who among the various claims was the properly elected person. It is stated that the petitioners have never informed these respondents about the election of the office bearers, whereas the 3rd respondent has informed them about the election, which is said to have taken place from 28th to 30th January, 2002, wherein he is said to have been re-elected as Convenor for the 2nd term. They tried to sustain the Memo dated 5-9-2002 stating that the initial orders in Memo dated 28-2-2002 were passed without the knowledge of the order of this Court in WP no. 7067/2002. It is further stated that in view of the various orders passed by this court, and the circumstances stated in the Memo dated 5-9-2002, fresh orders need to be passed as directed. ( 13 ) THE 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that Mr. Kantharaju ceased to be the President with effect from 5-6-1998. According to him, the claim of the petitioners that elections to the Convention were held between 14th and 16th January 2002, at CBN Church, Vijayawada, is not correct. On the other hand, he states that in the elections that were held between 28th to 30th January, 2002, one Mr. TCS emanuel was elected as the President and himself as the Secretary of the Convention and Convenor of Education Committee. According to the 3rd respondent, the post of convenor is elective and that the question of anybody being appointed to it does not arise. He referred to various proceedings that have taken place earlier touching on the matter. TCS emanuel was elected as the President and himself as the Secretary of the Convention and Convenor of Education Committee. According to the 3rd respondent, the post of convenor is elective and that the question of anybody being appointed to it does not arise. He referred to various proceedings that have taken place earlier touching on the matter. ( 14 ) SRI M. Chandra Sekhara Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that Mr. Kantharaju was elected as the President of the Convention initially in the year 1992, thereafter in the year 1997 and for the 3rd term in 2002. He submits that the affairs of the Convention are to be managed by the governing body as per article IX of the Constitution of the convention. It is his case that the Convenor of the Education Committee is to be appointed by the Board. According to him, after the elections in January 2002, the Board appointed one Sri Paulus as Convenor and since he resigned on health grounds in august 2002, the 2nd petitioner was appointed in his place. The learned Counsel submits that the earlier round of litigation related to the entitlement or otherwise of the 3rd respondent, to continue for the remaining term, ending with January 2002 and once that is over, the various directions issued therein have become superfluous. ( 15 ) THE learned Government Pleader for School Education submits that there were several conflicting claims for the recognition as Convenor of the Education committee of the Convention. According to him, not only there is a dispute as to who was properly appointed or elected as the Convenor, but the question as to which is the body properly elected in the year january 2002 was itself in doubt. He states that in view of the complexity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent is trying his level best to pass orders in accordance with law, as directed by this Court. ( 16 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the post of Convenor is elective in nature and the question of the General Body or any other authority appointing any individual as Convenor does not arise. ( 16 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the post of Convenor is elective in nature and the question of the General Body or any other authority appointing any individual as Convenor does not arise. According to him, the 3rd respondent was elected as the Secretary of the Convention as well as the Convenor of the Education committee in the elections held between 28th and 30th January 2002. He states that mr. Kantharaju ceased to be President with effect from 1998 and he has no authority to appoint or nominate any one, much less, the 2nd petitioner as the convenor. ( 17 ) THE 1st observation made by this court in almost every case relating to the convention was about the proliferation of litigation as regards its affairs. Each and every effort by this Court to give a quietus to the litigation has only provided a fertile ground for further litigation. Obviously because vast extent of financial and administrative powers are attached to the office of the Convenor, the claims of various persons are equally vociferous. In the process, truth and consistency became casualties. A semblance of warning contained in the Constitution of the Convention and its various subsidiary bodies and insistence of resolution of the disputes through internal mechanism appears to have yielded only negative results. ( 18 ) BEFORE undertaking the discussion into the merits of the matter, one aspect needs to be clarified. While the petitioners insist that the Convenor of the Education committee is to be appointed, the 3rd respondent claims that it is an elective post. The contentions as well as pleadings are very specific. In support of their respective pleas, both of them rely on the provisions of the constitution of the Education Committee. It is apt to refer to the respective contentions in their pleadings. In the affidavit, the petitioners state as under:"the Convenor of the Education Committee is the person who is responsible for the smooth administration of all educational institutions. The Governing body called the executive and Finance Board (Eandf) appoints the Convenor which has to be recognised by the competent authority i. e. , the commissioner and Director of Education (2nd respondent) under Section 24 of a. P. Education Act. The Governing body called the executive and Finance Board (Eandf) appoints the Convenor which has to be recognised by the competent authority i. e. , the commissioner and Director of Education (2nd respondent) under Section 24 of a. P. Education Act. "in his counter, the 3rd respondent has stated as under: -"it is submitted that the Executive and finance Board had no power to appoint a convenor. The Convenor of the Education committee shall be elected by the General body of the Convention. " ( 19 ) THE only way to resolve this controversy is to refer to the relevant provisions. Article III of the Constitution of the Education Committee deals with the method of formation of the Education committee. Inter alia, it provides as under:"iii (A) That the Education Committee shall be a Special Committee approved by the convention. It shall be a Convention committee under Article XIII of the constitution of the Baptist Churches of the northern Circars. It may be formed by the executive and Finance Board on behalf of the Convention. . . . . . . . " ( 20 ) THE Board is constituted under article XI of the Constitution of the convention comprising of President, Vice-President, secretaries, Treasurers, Past president, Chairman and Secretary of all boards and Vice Chairman of Boards of evangelism, and elected members. Article xiii of the Constitution of the Convention provides for the constitution of various special Committees. ( 21 ) FROM the above, it is evident that the Education Committee is treated as a committee under Article XIII. The provision specifically confers upon the Board to form education Committee: The composition of the Education Committee is referred to under article XVII of the Constitution of the education Committee. The same provision stipulates the tenure of the Convenor and members of the Education Committee as well as the Correspondents. The terms of the members as well as the Correspondents is prescribed as 3 years. However, the term of the Convenor is stipulated as 5 years. The same provision stipulates the tenure of the Convenor and members of the Education Committee as well as the Correspondents. The terms of the members as well as the Correspondents is prescribed as 3 years. However, the term of the Convenor is stipulated as 5 years. From a consideration of the provisions referred to above, the following aspects can be gathered: (A) The authority, which is conferred with the power to form or constitute education Committee is the Executive and Finance Board: (B) The office of the Convenor is not elective; (C) The term of the office of the convenor is five years; (D) The Education Committee is conferred with the status of the Convention committee;in view of the above, the contention of the 3rd respondent that the office of the convenor is elective cannot be accepted. ( 22 ) MR. G. J. R. Sunand, the 3rd respondent, Smt. T. Ch Emmanuel, claiming to be Chairman, Programme Committee and mr. K. Anand, Convenor Nominating committee in their letter dated 31-1-2002 addressed to the District Registrars of societies and Assurances claimed that the general Body of the Convention at its meeting held on 29-1-2002 has "taken a decision of allowing him (3rd respondent) to function for another term i. e. , 2nd term, as per Article XII of the Education committee of CBCNC". Enclosing a copy of the same, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter of the same date to the 2nd respondent. Claiming that "resolutions were passed unanimously extending the term of the Convenor of the Education Committee for another term as per the provisions of the Constitution". It is not as if the 3rd respondent and others sailing with him were not aware of the provisions of the constitution of the Education Committee. They made copious reference to the same. When the Constitution unequivocally provides for formation of the Education committee, which includes Convenor by the board, it is ununderstandable as to how a convenor can be "extended the term or allowed to function by a General body". Therefore, the claim of the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained at all. In contrast, the petitioners claim that the 2nd petitioner herein was appointed by the Board of the Convention on 10-5-2002. The very first sentence in the representation dated 7-9-2002 refers to this fact. Therefore, the claim of the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained at all. In contrast, the petitioners claim that the 2nd petitioner herein was appointed by the Board of the Convention on 10-5-2002. The very first sentence in the representation dated 7-9-2002 refers to this fact. The said action of the petitioners conforms to the provisions of the Constitution of the Convention as well as the Constitution of the Education Committee. ( 23 ) THERE is some dispute as tq the date of the election of the office bearers of the Convention. Admittedly, the term of the previous committee expired in January 2002. While the petitioners claim that the elections were held between 14th and 16th January 2002, at Vijayawada, the 3rd respondent claims that they were held between 28th and 30th January, 2002 at Vuyyuru. The petitioners have placed before this court some material in the form of a certificate issued by the Pastor of the church, where the elections are said to have taken place as well as the proceedings dated 15-1-2002 of the Commissioner of police, Vijayawada, granting police protection, on payment of Rs. 1,868/ -. No such material is placed before this Court by the 3rd respondent. ( 24 ) THE contention put forward on behalf of the 3rd respondent is that mr. Kantharaju ceased to be the President of the Convention with effect from 5-6-1998. Even as late as in the month of April 2000, this Court recorded a finding in WP No. 25865 of 1998 and batch to the following effect:"a suit was instituted in OS No. 51 of 1995 on the file of Additional District munsif s Court, Visakhapatnam by the group led by Mr. Kantharaju and in the said suit, a judgment was rendered and the said suit was decreed holding that the organisation headed by Mr. Kantharaju has been validity elected for a period of 5 years from 1997 to 2002 under the bye-laws. " ( 25 ) THE 3rd respondent was very much party to the said writ petitions, whereas mr. Kantharaju was not party at all. Had it been the contention of the 3rd respondent that Mr. Kantharaju ceased to be President of the Convention with effect from 1996, he ought to have demurred or challenged the observation of the Division Bench, either by way of appeal or review. He has not done so. Once the Presidentship of mr. Kantharaju was not party at all. Had it been the contention of the 3rd respondent that Mr. Kantharaju ceased to be President of the Convention with effect from 1996, he ought to have demurred or challenged the observation of the Division Bench, either by way of appeal or review. He has not done so. Once the Presidentship of mr. Kantharaju was recognised till 2002, it is but natural that the elections be held under his supervision or at least with his knowledge. Viewed from his angle, the elections said to have taken place between 28th and 30th January, 2002 cannot be taken into account at least for the purpose of recognising the Convenor. ( 26 ) THE purport of recognition of the convenor has been aptly explained by this court in that very judgment, to the following effect:"it is pertinent to mention that A. P. Education Act, 1982 governs the Christian missionaries also to the extent of permission to establish institutions and such institutions are governed by the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder, but not touching upon their independence with regard to management of the schools so as to be in tune with their fundamental right under Article 30 of constitution. "mere recognition of a Convenor does not amount to a pronouncement on the validity or otherwise of the elections of the Convention. ( 27 ) THIS Court is compelled to refer to these proceedings only with a view to consider the relative merits of the claims so as to enable the 2nd respondent to arrive at a conclusion. If the uncertainty is permitted to continue, it will affect the functioning of as many as 200 Institutions. The various directions issued by this Court in the previous writ petitions related to the entitlement of the 3rd respondent to continue for the remainder of the term. Once the term itself has come to an end, the enquiry becomes rather superfluous. It is unfortunate that neither the petitioners nor the 3rd respondent nor for that matter the various persons that have put-forth their claims from time to time have brought certain vital facts to the notice of this Court. ( 28 ) IT was in this context that a professor of Harvard University and author of several Law Books, Alan M. Dershoitz, observed as under:"all sides in a trial want to hide at least some of the truth. ( 28 ) IT was in this context that a professor of Harvard University and author of several Law Books, Alan M. Dershoitz, observed as under:"all sides in a trial want to hide at least some of the truth. The defendant wants to hide the truth because he s generally guilty. The defence attorney s job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth. The prosecution, too, has a truth to hide; it wants to make sure the process by which the evidence was obtained is not truthfully presented because, as often as not, that process will raise questions. " ( 29 ) SEVERAL persons advancing their claims, to administer the Institutions, appear to have made the observations of the professor a reality. ( 30 ) AS things stand now, as between the claim of the petitioners, on one hand, and the 3rd respondent, on the other, the following disparities emerge: si No. Petitioners 3rd respondent1. BEING the previous President, Mr. Kantharaju was competent to hold the elections and the elections held at a meeting convened by him have a semblance of legality the 3rd respondent claims that Smt. Emmanuel was functioning as the President of the Convention since 1998, but in none of the proceedings before this Court, she figured as President. 2. THERE is semblance of evidence of convening the General Body for elections, such as, Certificate by Pasture and Proceedings of thecommissioner of Police. No such material is placed before this Court. 3. THE 2nd petitioner is said to have been appointed by the Executive and Finance Board, which is in conformity with the Constitution of the Education Committee. The term of the 3rd respondent is said to have been extended by the General Body. ( 31 ) UNDER these circumstances, this court is of the view that, as the things stand now, the 2nd petitioner deserves to be recognised as the Convenor. Such recognition shall however be without prejudice to the right of the 3rd respondent or others to approach any Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate declaration and consequential relief. ( 32 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in the matter of recognition of the 2nd petitioner as the convenor. Such recognition shall however be without prejudice to the right of the 3rd respondent or others to approach any Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate declaration and consequential relief. ( 32 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in the matter of recognition of the 2nd petitioner as the convenor. Having regard to the fact that functioning of several institutions are involved, necessary orders are directed to be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this orders. No costs.