S.K.Krishnan, J.: These two writ appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the common order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.6588 and 8341 of 1998 dated 12.8.1998 and the appellant have also filed two writ petitions for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.360/A5/98, dated 28.4.1999 in W.P.No.8515 of 1999 and the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.6087/W12/98, dated 1.5.1998 in W.P.No.15151 of 1999. 2. Since the questions involved in the writ appeals and the writ petitions are one and the same, they were heard together and disposed of by a common order. 3. The facts, which are necessary for better appreciation of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows: "The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.Nos.6588 of 1998 and was the fifth respondent in W.P.Nos.8341 of 1998. The second and fifth respondent in W.A.No.1095 and 1096 of 1998 respectively was the petitioner in W.P.No.8341 of 1998. The second in question, namely, Karpoorasundarapandian Ramalakshmi Higher Secondary School, Sivagangai, was started as an Elementary School in the year 1964 by (Late) Thiru. K.Rajasekharan, who was the grandfather of the appellant/petitioner. In the wake of the death of the former Secretary of the Educational Agency (Kapoorasundarapandian Ramalakshmi Educational Advancement Committee), namely, Thiru.R.Shanmuganatha, the appellant agency in the meeting held on 1.2.1995 and the election of the appellant was approved by a competent authority on 3.2.1995. Since the term of office of Secretary is three years, the appellant was re-nominated as Secretary of the Educational Agency on 17.11.1998, as per Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Proved Schools Regulations Act, 1974 and a resolution thereto was sent to the competent authority for approval. The competent authority/third respondent, in his letter dated 3.4.1998, though had approved the appointment of the appellant as Secretary, cancelled the approval by his letter dated 6.4.1998. Hence, while against the order of the first respondent dated 6.4.1998, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6588 of 1988, the second and fifth respondent in W.A.Nos.1095 and 1996 of 1998 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8341 of 1998 against the order of the first respondent dated 3.4.1998. Since both the writ petitions were disposed of, quashing both the orders of the first respondent dated 3.4.1998 and 6.4.1998, by order dated 12.8.1998, the appellant has come forward with these two appeals. Since both the writ petitions were disposed of, quashing both the orders of the first respondent dated 3.4.1998 and 6.4.1998, by order dated 12.8.1998, the appellant has come forward with these two appeals. While the appeals are pending disposal before this Court, in view of certain powers that had conferred on the first respondent by the Director of School Education, the first respondent in his proceedings dated 28.4.1999, directed the Head Master of the said School to send him certain records. Prior to that proceedings, the first respondent was directed to disburse the salary to the staff members of the said School by the Director of School Education, Chennai, in his proceedings, dated 21.5.1998. Against the said two proceedings, dated 28.4.1999 and 21.5.1998, the appellant filed two writ petitions, in W.P.No.8515 and 15151 of 1999 respectively." 4. Heard both sides. 5. It is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that no permission or approval of the District Educational Officer is necessary as prescribed under Rule 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, for re-nominating the appellant who had held the post of Secretary for a subsequent term, but if the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior permission of the District Educational Officer and therefore, the approval of the first respondent and subsequent cancellation of his approval, vide orders dated 3.4.1998 and 6.4.1998 are unwarranted. When there is nothing said about the approval or permission of the first respondent for re-nomination of the appellant as Secretary to the said educational agency, the said orders of the first respondent would not bind the appellant and therefore, in the light of the above legal position, the proceedings of the first respondent dated 21.5.1998 and 28.4.1999 are not valid and unsustainable under law.6.Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the second and fifth respondent would contend that when the respondent claiming certain rights over the management of the school by sending the proposals to the Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education) D.P.I. Campus, Chennai, for approval and consequently, while enquiries are on, on the so-called denomination of the appellant as Secretary, that too by forgery, the order dated 3.4.1998 is not acceptable and valid. 7. 7. Before entering into the rival contentions, it is better to see what Rule 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 says. "13. Secretary of the School Committee: (2) The term of office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be three years. However, he shall be eligible for renomination as Secretary for subsequent terms. If the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior permission of the District Educational Officer." 8. There is no doubt, the provisions of the said Section are clear that when the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so only with the prior permission of the District Educational Officer. Otherwise, there is no need for getting permission or approval of the District Educational Officer. 9. In the case on hand, the President of the said School Committee, namely, Thiru K.R.Satyendran, re-nominated the appellant as Secretary of the Educational Agency for a subsequent term and sent a communication in regard thereto on 1.3.1998 for approval to the first respondent and again on 24.3.1998. Based on those letters sent by Thiru K.R.Satyendran, President of the School, the competent authority approved the renomination of the appellant and sent a communication dated 3.4.1998 thereto. Thereafter, since it was objected by the second and fifth respondent that the letters sent by the so-called President were fabricated and forged ones and therefore, the order dated 3.4.1998 should be cancelled. Since the first respondent came to know about the forgery of the letters, he cancelled his order dated 3.4.1998, by order dated 6.4.1998. 10. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, in para 12 of the order of the learned single Judge of this Court observed as follows: "Even though the order dated 6.4.1998 may not be correct, because the same was passed without a notice to the petitioner in W.P.No.6588 of 1988, one thing is clear that the order dated 3.4.1998 was also not properly issued". 11. Anyhow, when the said Section is clear as said above, the first respondent has no role to play in this matter and in such circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court for quashing the orders dated 3.4.1998 and 6.4.1998, though on the other ground. 12. 11. Anyhow, when the said Section is clear as said above, the first respondent has no role to play in this matter and in such circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court for quashing the orders dated 3.4.1998 and 6.4.1998, though on the other ground. 12. Now, the question to be determined is while the proposals claiming Secretaryship, sent by the second and fifth respondent are pending consideration before the authorities concerned, the order of the learned single Judge of this Court referring the matter to a Civil Court is correct or not. 13. It is an admitted fact that when the brother of the second and fifth respondent, namely, Thiru S.P.Seeman, came to know about the nomination of the appellant during the year 1995, challenging the said nomination, a civil suit was instituted by him in O.S.No.168 of 1995 before the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai and the said suit was abated, since he died subsequently. 14. After the death of the said Seeman, a compromise formula was initiated by both the parties and both the parties had agreed to settle their dispute on or before 1.2.1998. On 17.1.1998, in the alleged meeting of educational agency, the appellant was re-nominated as Secretary of the educational agency and a communication thereto was sent on 1.2.1998. On 27.1.1998, the second and fifth respondent and other family members constituted an educational agency and sent a proposal thereto to the Joint Director of School Education, Chennai, for approval and they also constituted a School Committee and a proposal in regard thereto was sent to the District Educational Officer, Sivagangai, who informed the second and fifth respondent, by his letter dated 18.2.1998, that only after the approval of the educational agency constituted by the family members of the second and fifth respondent, the proposal constituting School Committee could be approved by him. The Chief Educational Officer, called the second and fifth respondent and the appellant for enquiry, on 7.3.1998, in the wake of their claims in respect of educational agency and secretaryship. Though the second and fifth respondent participated in the enquiry conducted by the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer on 19.3.1998, the appellant did not participate. Again, on 24.3.1998, an alleged letter was sent by the President, Mr.K.R.Satyendran, re-nominating the appellant as Secretary to the District Educational Officer, Sivagangai. Though the second and fifth respondent participated in the enquiry conducted by the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer on 19.3.1998, the appellant did not participate. Again, on 24.3.1998, an alleged letter was sent by the President, Mr.K.R.Satyendran, re-nominating the appellant as Secretary to the District Educational Officer, Sivagangai. On the basis of the letters dated 17.1.1998 and 24.3.1998, the District Educational Officer passed the impugned order, approving those letters, dated 3.4.1998. He again, on 6.4.1998 passed the impugned order dated 6.4.1998, in wake of objection raised by the second and fifth respondent, cancelling his order dated 3.4.1998. The Director of School Education, Chennai, invoking the provisions of Sec.53(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, by his proceedings dated 21.5.1998, appointed a Special Officer to look after the management of the said school, till the dispute, with regard to the educational agency, is resolved by a competent Civil Court, but the copies of the said proceedings were not sent to the parties. On 18.6.1998, aggrieved by the orders of the District Educational Officer dated 3.4.1998 and 6.4.1998, both the parties filed the Writ petitions before this Court as stated above. 15. On the above factual ground, taking into consideration of the materials available on record and the rival contentions, the learned single Judge of this Court, in his order dated 12.8.1998, in para 14, observed as follows: "14. In the result, I quash both the orders dated 3.4.1998 and 6.4.1998, and the question whether who is entitled to manage the school is left to be decided by the competent Civil Court. It is represented that, on 1.5.1998, the State Educational Authorities have appointed a Special Officer for taking over the management of the School, and direct payment to the staff has also been ordered. I feel that the procedure adopted by the Government in such circumstances is only to be upheld. Any of the petitioner can move the Civil Court for a final determination of the inter se dispute. If they fail to move the Civil Court within a period of one month, from today, I direct the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973 to refer the dispute to the Civil Court which has jurisdiction. Any of the petitioner can move the Civil Court for a final determination of the inter se dispute. If they fail to move the Civil Court within a period of one month, from today, I direct the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973 to refer the dispute to the Civil Court which has jurisdiction. The Special Officer now appointed, shall continue in office, to manage the school till the decision is arrived by the Civil Court or otherwise finally settled between the parties and intimated to the authorities. Direct payment of salary to the staff of the Educational Institutions shall continue till then." 16. It could be seen from the above facts, that a dispute with regard to educational agency and secretaryship has been existing between both the parties and therefore, there is nothing wrong in invoking the provisions of Sec.53(A)(2) of The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, by the Director of School Education, Chennai, by his proceedings dated 21.5.1998. 17. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ayyasamy v. The District Educational Officer, Madras and two others, (1996)2 M.L.J. 391 : (1996)1 L.W. 567 , wherein, after elaborately discussing the provisions of Sec.53-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, it held as follows: "If a properly and validly elected Educational Agency or School Committee, duly registered and certified by competent Authority exists, the same should be allowed to function and not stultified". 18. Sec.53-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 is as follows: "53-A. Settlement of dispute as to educational agency, etc.: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sec.53, whenever any dispute as to the constitution of any educational agency, or as to whether any person or body of persons, is an educational agency, in relation to any private school, or as to the constitution of a school committee, or as to the appointment of the secretary of the school committee, arises, such dispute may be referred by the persons interested or by the competent authority to the Civil Court having jurisdiction, for its decision. Pending the decision of the Civil Court on a dispute referred to it under Sub-sec.(1), or the making of an interim arrangement by the Civil Court for the running of the private school, the Government may nominate an officer to discharge the functions of the educational agency, the school committee or the Secretary, as the case may be, in relation to the private school concerned." 19. A plain reading of the provisions of the above Section, reveals that when there is a dispute with regard to educational agency or appointment of Secretary, the matter may be referred to a Civil Court having jurisdiction and pending the decision, the Government may appoint an officer to look into the affairs of the management of the school. 20. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, which make abundantly clear that from the very beginning, there is a dispute between the parties with regard to educational agency and secretaryship, and the provisions of the said Section, which supported the action of the Director of School Education, Chennai, the principles laid down in the above said decision is not squarely applicable to the case on hand as no case was made out that there was properly and validly elected Educational Agency or School Committee and therefore, we are of the view that the learned Judge of this Court rightly referred the matter to the Civil Court with certain directions as stated supra. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge of this Court. 21. It is brought to the notice of this Court, while admitting the writ appeals filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the W.M.P.Nos.12131 to 12134 of 1998 with the following observations: “Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the management of the school in question is not taken by the Special Officer, pursuant to the so called order dated 21.5.1998. Under the circumstances, there is need to maintain the status quo. Learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, namely, Nallathambi fairly submitted that although the management of the school has not been taken over, there has been disbursement of salary directly by department. Learned Government Advocate also states that the salary has been disbursed directly by the officers of the department. Learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, namely, Nallathambi fairly submitted that although the management of the school has not been taken over, there has been disbursement of salary directly by department. Learned Government Advocate also states that the salary has been disbursed directly by the officers of the department. This being the position, we think it appropriate to order to maintain status quo as existing as on today in relation to the management of the school until further orders. We make it clear that the pendency of these appeals or interim order issued by us in the C.M.Ps., shall not come in the way of the Civil Court in proceeding with the matter in accordance with law in the suit filed before it.” 22. Further, the learned senior counsel for the appellant would also invite our attention that the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8515 of 1999 against the proceedings of the District Educational Officer dated 28.4.1999, pertaining to call for certain records, in view of certain powers conferred on the District Educational Officer by the Director of School Education in his proceedings dated 13.4.1999. 23. From the interim order, it is clear that the appellant is looking after the Management of the School, but salary to the staff members and teachers of the school is being disbursed by the officers of the Department. 24. It is to be seen that the Director of School Education, Chennai invoking the provisions of Sec.53(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, by his proceedings dated 21.5.1998 appointed a Special Officer to look after the management of the said School, till the dispute, with regard to the educational agency, is resolved by a competent Civil Court, but the copies of the said proceedings were not sent to the parties. However, on a perusal of the photo copies of the proceedings dated 21.5.1998 of the Director of School Education, it could be seen that though the directions have been issued to the District Educational Officer to look after the management of the School, such directions have not been implemented, except the disbursement of salary to the staff members and teachers of the school. 25. 25. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that no such communication with regard to the invoking of the provisions of Sec.53(A) TNPSR Act has been communicated by the authorities to the parties in dispute. It is seen that with regard to the disbursement of salary, no stay has been granted by this Court while admitting the writ appeals. Status quo order was passed with regard to disbursement of salary to the staff members and teachers of the school. Therefore, the Special Officer appointed by the Director of School Education, by his proceedings dated 2.15.1998 has been disbursing the salary to the staff members of the school. 26. In such circumstances, we are inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P.No.8515 of 1999 since the petitioner/appellant is looking after the management of the School, excepting disbursement of salary to the staff and teaching members of the school. Since the dismissal of the said writ petition, in our view, would create problems to the staff members and teachers of the School, we do not like to interfere with the status quo order. Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P.No.8515 of 1999 is allowed, setting aside the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, dated 28.4.1999. 27. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counselappearing for the appellant that the appellant also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.15151 of 1999 against the proceedings of the Director of School Education, Chennai, dated 21.5.1998, which conferred powers to disburse the grant to the Teachers and Staff members of K.R.Higher Secondary School. 28. We have already arrived at the conclusion, as stated above, that nothing is wrong in the proceedings, invoking the provisions of Sec.53(A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973, of the Director of School Education, dated 21.5.1998 and therefore, we are not inclined to allow the writ petition in W.P.No.15151 of 1999 and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 29. 29. In totally, considering the facts and circumstances of the case on the rival contentions and normal functioning of the management of the said school, wide dismissing the appeals and W.P.No.15151 of 1999, but allowing the W.P.No.8515 of 1999, the following directions are given to the concerned: (a) Regarding disbursement of salary and other monetary benefits to the staff members and teachers of the said school, status quo shall be maintained till the decision of the Civil Court; (b) With a view not to disturb the affairs of the management, we allow the appellant to maintain the status quo in managing the affairs of the said school without any prejudice either to the Institution or to the other parties till the decision of the Civil Court; (c) To bring the stalemate to an end, we direct the Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, to dispose of the O.A.No.108 of 1998 within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, after affording reasonable opportunities to both the parties. Further, the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, is directed to communicate the copies of the judgment and decree at the cost of the plaintiffs to the respondents 1 to 4 in W.A.No.1096 of 1998 on the file of this Court; (d) The said respondents 1 to 4 are directed to take appropriate action, on receipt of the copy of the judgment from the said Civil Court, in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act, 1973. In result, (1) Both the writ appeals are dismissed with the above directions. (2) W.P.No.8515 of 1999 is allowed. (3) W.P.No.15151 of 1999 is dismissed. (4) Connected C.M.Ps. and W.M.Ps. are also dismissed. (5) No costs.