Judgment :- 1. Writ Appeal Nos.22 and 24 of 2008 are preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.12.2007, allowing W.P.(MD)Nos.2652/2006 and 2985/2007 and quashing the orders of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, in R.C.No.150 B2/2006, dated 15.03.2006 and the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, in M.M.No.874/A5/06, dated 25.09.2006 and the consequential orders dated 29.12.2006 and 31.01.2007 and directing them to approve the Correspondents nominated by the Tirunelveli CMS Evangelical Church Society, Idayankulam, the 1st Respondent in W.A.24 of 2008. 2. W.A.(MD)No.23/2008 is preferred against the order dismissing W.P.(MD)No.4225/2006 filed by Tirunelveli C.M.S.-Evangelical Church, Odaikarai. W.P.(MD)No.4225 of 2006 was filed challenging the proceedings of the District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, dated 05.05.2006, registering Form No.VII submitted by one J.Daniel, shown as Respondent No.4 in the said Writ Petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as in W.A.(MD)No.24 of 2008. 3. When the Writ Appeals came up for hearing, we have expressed reluctance to hear the Appeals, since one of us (R. BANUMATHI,J.) had passed orders in W.P.(MD)No.2144/2006 (dated 06.03.2006) and W.P.(MD)No.2478/2006 (dated 15.03.2006) to consider the representation of both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent Church Society. Both the counsels have stated that these Appeals arise out of common order dated 20.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge (Justice P.Jeyapaul) and the orders passed in the earlier Writ Petitions are only incidental and may not be an impediment for hearing these Appeals. Both the counsels readily expressed their consent to get along with the Appeals. 4. The Multitude of litigation relates to Tirunelveli C.M.S.-Evangelical Church Society (in short "Church Society"). There are about 52 Churches functioning under 1st Respondent Church Society. The 1st Respondent Church Society also owns and administers 27 Primary and Middle Schools, both in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts. The Schools are recognized and aided by the State Government Dispute between the 1st Appellant Group (Issac Group) and the 1st Respondent Church Society, represented by J.Daniel group, in respect of election to the Church Society and administration of schools led to filing of number of Writ Petitions as well as suits. 5. Relevant facts in nutshell are as follows: (a) The1st Respondent Church Society, Idayankulam, was formed in 1925 and registered with Regn.No.2/25-26 and it was functioning from Idayankulam. Last election for the Society took place in 1998 for the triennium 1998-2001 held on 22.05.1998. 5. Relevant facts in nutshell are as follows: (a) The1st Respondent Church Society, Idayankulam, was formed in 1925 and registered with Regn.No.2/25-26 and it was functioning from Idayankulam. Last election for the Society took place in 1998 for the triennium 1998-2001 held on 22.05.1998. Challenging the same, the father of 1st Appellant Isaac, namely Koil Pitchai, filed W.P.No.19213/1999. The said Koil Pitchai claimed that there were more members in the Society. The High Court had appointed Mr.Calvin Jacob, a Senior Member of the Bar, as Advocate Commissioner and members were directed to submit their claim and establish their membership. As per the order of the Court, Adhoc Committee was constituted and the Adhoc Committee scrutinized and finalised the membership. The Court directed that the membership finalised as per the bye-law by the Adhoc Committee shall be handed over to the District Registrar of Societies, Cheranmahadevi (in short "District Registrar") and the District Registrar will conduct the election. (b) On the basis of the list furnished by the Adhoc Committee, the District Registrar notified the Election on 16.02.2002. The said Koil Pitchai challenged the same by filing another Writ Petition in W.P.No.2111/2002 and ultimately the Writ Petition was dismissed and the Writ Appeal was also dismissed with a direction to approach the Civil Court. Koil Pitchai also filed O.S.No.138/2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cheranmahadevi and the suit was dismissed on 30.12.2005 and the First Appeal preferred in A.S.No.53/2006 was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The District Registrar notified the election for the subsequent triennium 2005-2008 on 09.12.2005 to be held on 30.12.2005. The election took place and the 1st Respondent Church Society filed Form No.VII before the District Registrar on 03.01.2006, which was returned for some compliance and thereafter re-presented on 13.02.2006. (c) 1st Appellant, who is none other than the son of the said Koil Pitchai and his group claimed to have convened the meeting of General Body on 30.12.2005 and proposed to hold an election on 26.01.2005. According to the Appellants, the General Body elected 50 members to form the Managing Committee for the triennium 2006-2009. The 1st Appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.2144/2006 as if the Elected Committee nominated the Correspondents to various schools and the same was not approved by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. According to the Appellants, the General Body elected 50 members to form the Managing Committee for the triennium 2006-2009. The 1st Appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.2144/2006 as if the Elected Committee nominated the Correspondents to various schools and the same was not approved by the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. At the admission stage, by the order dated 06.03.2006, this Court directed the District Elementary Educational Officer to consider the same and pass orders, in accordance with law and on merits. On 15.03.2006, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, approved Appellants 2 and 3 as Correspondents. Challenging the impugned order of the District Elementary Educational Officer, dated 15.03.2006, the 1st Respondent Church Society filed W.P.(MD)No.2652/2006. (d) The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, has approved Appellants 2 and 3 as Correspondents in respect of schools in Tuticorin District on 25.09.2006, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(MD)No.2985/2007. (e) 1st Respondent Church Society filed W.P.(MD)no.2478/2006 seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, to consider Form No.VII submitted by the 1st Respondent Church Society considering the Proposal dated 02.01.2006. By the order dated 15.03.2006, this Court has directed the District Registrar to consider and pass order in respect of Form No.VII submitted by the 1st Respondent Church Society. On considering the materials available in the file and after getting opinion from the Government Pleader, by the order dated 28.04.2006, the District Registrar approved Form No.VII submitted by the 1st Respondent Church Society. Challenging the same, the Appellants have filed W.P.No.4225/2006. (f) Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge held that the District Registrar has rightly approved Form No.VII filed by the 1st Respondent Church Society and the District Registrar has properly weighed the merits of Form No.VII filed by the 1st Respondent Church Society. The learned Single Judge further held that without verifying whether the Managing Committee which appointed the Correspondents were recognised by the District Registrar, the District Elementary Educational Officers of Tirunelveli and Tuticorin have chosen to approve the Correspondents approved by the Appellants. The learned Single Judge further held that the Managing Committee of the 1st Respondent Church Society, recognised by the District Registrar, alone has the authority to appoint the Correspondents. The learned Single Judge further held that the Managing Committee of the 1st Respondent Church Society, recognised by the District Registrar, alone has the authority to appoint the Correspondents. On those findings, the learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officers of Tirunelveli dated 15.03.2006 and Tuticorin dated 25.09.2006 and directed them to approve the Correspondents nominated by the 1st Respondent Church Society, as per their proposal dated 13.02.2006. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants in W.P.(MD) No.4225/2006. 6. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the Appellants, submitted that while considering Form No.VII submitted by the 1st Respondent Church Society, the District Registrar ought to have simultaneously considered Form No.VII submitted by the Appellants. Having himself expressed views that the District Registrar should have simultaneously considered Form No.VII filed by the Appellants, the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter back to the District Registrar for consideration of the matter afresh. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in (2005) 2 MLJ 335 - C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee, Karisal vs. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, the District Registrar has not conducted prima facie inquiry regarding approval of Form No.VII and the order passed by the District Registrar, dated 28.04.2006 is blindfold and the order does not indicate any inquiry. In short, the main contention of the Appellants is that Form No.VII submitted by the 1st Respondent ought to have been considered simultaneously along with the Form No.VII submitted by the Appellants. 7. Taking us through the earlier proceedings, the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent Church Society contended that the Appellants are not at all members of the Society and therefore they are not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition. The learned counsel would further submit that Koil Pitchai, who unsuccessfully challenged the election in the earlier proceedings, has set-up his son Issac and therefore the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants lack bonafide. Placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision (2005) 2 MLJ 335 cited supra, the learned counsel submitted that the District Registrar has only to prima facie satisfy as to the particulars contained in Form No.VII and the District Registrar has duly considered Form No.VII filed by the 1st Respondent Church Society. Placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision (2005) 2 MLJ 335 cited supra, the learned counsel submitted that the District Registrar has only to prima facie satisfy as to the particulars contained in Form No.VII and the District Registrar has duly considered Form No.VII filed by the 1st Respondent Church Society. Placing reliance upon the decision of the First Bench of this Court in 2008-2-L.W. 75 -R. Muralidaran & 6 others vs. The District Registrar, South Madras and another, the learned counsel submitted that approval of Form No.VII is purely ministerial act of the District Register and challenging the same no Writ Petition would be maintainable. 8. Even at the outset, we have to keep in view that the 1st Appellants father Koil Pitchai has been opposing the election for the last triennium 1998-2001 by filing number of Writ Petitions and suits and unsuccessfully fought out the litigation. While, the 1st Appellants father challenged the election for the triennium 1998-2001 held on 22.05.1998, as per the order of the High Court, Adhoc Committee was constituted and membership was finalised and the High Court has directed that membership finalised by the Adhoc Committee shall be handed over to the District Registrar and the District Registrar will conduct the election. Koil Pitchai has unsuccessfully challenged the Election Notification of the District Registrar issued on 16.02.2002 by filing Writ Petition and also by filing Civil Suit. As per the order of the High Court, the District Registrar notified the election for the triennium 2005-2008 and the election was held on 30.12.2005 and the 1st respondent is the duly elected body in the election conducted as per the order of the High Court. 9. 1st Respondent - duly elected body submitted Form No.VII to the District Registrar on 03.01.2006, which was returned for some compliance and thereafter it was represented on 13.02.2006. After the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2478/2006, the District Registrar has approved Form No.VII by order dated 28.04.2006. 10. According to the Appellants, the tenure of the previous committee came to an end on 30.12.2005 and therefore General Body meeting on that date was convened for electing the new Managing Committee for the current trinnium and proposed to hold elections on 26.01.2006 and the General Body elected 50 members to form the Managing Committee for the period 2006-2009. 10. According to the Appellants, the tenure of the previous committee came to an end on 30.12.2005 and therefore General Body meeting on that date was convened for electing the new Managing Committee for the current trinnium and proposed to hold elections on 26.01.2006 and the General Body elected 50 members to form the Managing Committee for the period 2006-2009. According to the Appellants, on 26.01.2006, the Managing Committee elected office bearers and appointed Appellants 2 and 3 as the Correspondents for the 27 schools and one Peter Nadar, K.Issac and D.Samuel have been elected as President, Secretary and Treasurer, respectively and, thereafter, the Appellants submitted the statement in this regard in Form No.VII to the District Registrar on 30.01.2006. 11. The main contention of the Appellants is that the District Registrar ought to have simultaneously considered Form No.VII filed by the Appellants while the District Registrar considered Form No.VII submitted by the 1st Respondent Church Society. 12. The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1975 -Rule 17 deals with filing of copy of the register of members and notice of change of members or committee. As per Rule 17(2), the notice of any change among the members of the society or of the committee shall be filed in Form No.VII within three months from the date of such change. The notice of change among the members of the committee shall be accompanied by the resolution of the meeting, if any, effecting such change. 13. As per Rule 50(1), The Registrar shall examine every list, statement, intimation, notice or other document received by him which is required by the Act of these rules to be registered, recorded, or filed and if he finds any such list, statement, intimation, notice or other document to be defective or incomplete in any of the particulars required by the Act or these rules, he shall return it to the party or society tendering it, for due rectification or completion and until, such list, statement, intimation, notice or other document is so rectified or completed he shall not register, record of file the same. As per Rule 50(2), a separate file shall be maintained in respect of each registered society. The Registrar shall file all documents relating thereto received from time to time in chronological order in the order of the dates on which they are received by the Registrar. 14. As per Rule 50(2), a separate file shall be maintained in respect of each registered society. The Registrar shall file all documents relating thereto received from time to time in chronological order in the order of the dates on which they are received by the Registrar. 14. Section 34 of the Act deals with the power of the Registrar to call information or explanation. A reading of Section 34(1) would reveal that where the Registrar, on perusal of any document which a registered society is required to file with the Registrar under the provisions of the Act and where the Registrar is of the opinion that any information or explanation is necessary with respect to any matter to which such document purports to relate, he may, by order in writing, call on the registered society filing the document to furnish in writing such information or explanation within such time he may specify in the order. As is seen from Section 34(3), on receipt of such information or explanation, the Registrar may annex the same to the original document filed with him and the additional document so annexed by the Registrar shall be subject to the like provisions as to inspection and the taking of copies as the original document is subject. 15. A combined reading of Section 34 read with Rule 17(2) would make it clear that Form No.VII is to inform any change among the members of the society or constitution of the committee. On filing of Form No.VII, the Registrar may annex the same to the original document. Any information or explanation, which the Registrar may call upon under Section 34(1) is only for maintaining correct records/documents for the purpose of annexing the same to the original files maintained in respect of each of the registered society. These annexed documents are subject to inspection and taking of copies as the original document is subject [Section 34(3)]. Thus, the power of the Registrar under Section 34 to call for information or explanation is only incidental for maintaining correct records. 16. The power of the Registrar under Section 34 is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records. Form No.VII prescribes the format in which a notice of any change among the members of the society or the committee is to be filed before the Registrar. 16. The power of the Registrar under Section 34 is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records. Form No.VII prescribes the format in which a notice of any change among the members of the society or the committee is to be filed before the Registrar. Filing of Form No.VII is only consequential to any change i.e. change of members of change of constitution of the committee. As we have pointed out earlier, For No.VII so filed is only for the purpose of maintaining separate file in respect of each registered society. 17. Observing that acceptance of Form No.VII is only a ministerial act and that it cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, First Bench of this Court in 2008-2-L.W.75 - R.Muralidaran & 6 others v. The District Registrar, South Madras and another, held as under: "29.It is seen that the requirement under Rule 17(2) for filing Form No.VII stems out of the requirement under Section 15 of the Act. ..... xxx xxx xxx 32. From a bare reading of Sub Section (1) of Section 34, it is clear that the only obligation cast upon the Registrar, upon receipt of any document or Form filed under the Act, is to call for any further information or explanation in respect of any matter, to which, such document relates to. Sub Section (3) makes it still more clear by prescribing that the Registrar may annex such information or explanation to the original document filed with him. Therefore, if Form No>VII is filed with the Registrar, as required by Section 15(1) of the Act read with Rule 17(2) of the Rules, all that the Registrar can do is only to call for further information or explanation under Section 34(1) and keep the information or explanation received by him as an annexure to the original document. This is nothing but a mere ministerial function and hence, it cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xxx xxx xxx 39. Therefore, we hold that a writ would not lie against any ministerial act performed by the Registrar of Societies under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registrar Act, including the acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII. xxx xxx xxx 39. Therefore, we hold that a writ would not lie against any ministerial act performed by the Registrar of Societies under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registrar Act, including the acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII. Whenever Form No.VII is filed, the District Registrar can only call for further information/explanation and file the same along with the Form under Section 34 and he is not entitled to adjudicate any dispute. ......" (emphasis added) In our considered view, the above observation applies in all fours to the present case. 18. Contending that while considering Form No.VII, the Registrar has to hold an inquiry and such exercise of power is not arbitrary and the exercise of power is amenable to writ jurisdiction, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, the learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance upon (2005) 2 MLJ 335 . Considering the scope and power of the Registrar under Section 36 of the Act and observing that the power of the Registrar under the Act is only intended to regulate the affairs of the Society, in (2005) 2 MLJ 335 - C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi Davi Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee, Karisal vs. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, in paragraph 18, the Full Bench of this Court has held as under. "18.The power of the Registrar to enquire into the affairs of the society is only to hold a summary inquiry for his own satisfaction. The said power cannot be construed as the power of appeal. Under Sec.36, the Registrar has not been empowered to adjudicate upon the conflicting claims to represent the society based upon question of fact. A plain reading of Sec.36 shows that the Registrar could look into only the provisions of the Act and the Rules and prima facie materials to arrive at a conclusion either to believe or not to believe Form No.VII in order to effect change int he register. The power of the Registrar to call for information and explanation under Sec.34 does not contemplate any power to examine witnesses or to allow opportunity for cross examination of witnesses. The power in our view is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records. As the power to conduct inquiry is only limited in order to find out whether constitution of members are valid, the inquiry is limited only for the purpose of making entries in the register. The power in our view is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records. As the power to conduct inquiry is only limited in order to find out whether constitution of members are valid, the inquiry is limited only for the purpose of making entries in the register. However, the exercise of power must not be arbitrary as the orders passed or directions issued by the Registrar is amenable to challenge in the writ jurisdiction." 19. As seen from Paragraph 18 of the Judgment of the Full Bench extracted above, the Full Bench dealt with the power of the Registrar, both under Section 36 and under Section 34 of the Act. Since Section 36 of the Act empowers the Registrar to conduct an inquiry, the Full Bench held that the exercise of such power under Section 36 should not be arbitrary as the orders passed by the Registrar would be amenable to challenge in the writ jurisdiction. But, insofar as the power under Section 34 is concerned, the Registrar is not expected to conduct any inquiry except to call for additional information or explanation and that too just for the purpose of filing it as Annexure to the original document. 20. As pointed out earlier, as per the order of the High Court, the District Registrar has notified the election to be held on 30.12.2005 and the 1st respondent represents the group duly elected in the said election notified by the District Registrar. As Form No.VII submitted by the 1st Respondent Church Society was by the elected body, pursuant to the direction of the High Court, on being satisfied as to the particulars contained in Form No.VII and after obtaining opinion of the Government Pleader, the District Registrar received Form No.VII filed by the 1st Respondent Church Society. As it is only a ministerial act, it was not incumbent upon the District Registrar to hold any inquiry or simultaneously consider Form No.VII filed by the Appellants so as to satisfy as to which one of Form No.VII is to be accepted. As held by the First Bench, the ministerial act of the District Registrar in receiving Form No.VII cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. 21. As held by the First Bench, the ministerial act of the District Registrar in receiving Form No.VII cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. 21. As pointed out earlier, in the General Body Meeting convened by the Appellants, purportedly on 26.01.2006, the General Body is said to have elected 50 members to form the Managing Committee for the period 2006-2009. It is the further case of the Appellants that the Managing Committee elected the office bearers - Peter Nadar, K.Issac and D.Samuel were elected as President, Secretary and Treasurer, respectively and Appellants 2 and 3 were appointed as Correspondents of the Schools. Filing of Form No.VII by the Appellants is consequential to the election purportedly held on 26.01.2006 wherein the Appellants are alleged to have elected office bearers - President, Secretary and Treasurer and Managing Committee is said to have appointed Appellants 2 and 3 as Correspondents. 22. In our considered view, ultimately the Appellants challenge the election of Daniel Group as Officer Bearers in the election conducted by the District Registrar. The Appellants, aggrieved by the election, cannot challenge the acceptance of Form No.VII by the District Registrar, as a short-cut to invalidate the election. As held by the Full Bench in C.M.S. Evangelical Case (cited supra), the validity of election could very well be decided only by the competent civil court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims. If at all the Appellants are aggrieved by the election of office bearers of 1st Respondent Church Society, the same can be challenged only before the Civil Court. Form No.VII is only consequential to the election and constitution of the Managing Committee and the same cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. 23. J. Daniel, together with few persons, filed O.S.No.4/2006 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cheranmahadevi, seeking for declaration and consequential injunction against the conduct of General Body Meeting and election scheduled to be held on 26.01.2006. The Court did not grant any interim orders and later O.S.No.4/2006 was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.01.2006. On the same day, one Philip Durai and one Jeyakumar are said to have filed similar suit in O.S.No.15/2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, for the same relief. In that suit also, the Court did not grant any interim order and later the said suit was also dismissed for default on 30.10.2006. On the same day, one Philip Durai and one Jeyakumar are said to have filed similar suit in O.S.No.15/2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, for the same relief. In that suit also, the Court did not grant any interim order and later the said suit was also dismissed for default on 30.10.2006. 24. Learned counsel for the Appellants Mr. Issac Mohanlal very much harped on the filing of suits by the 1st Respondent in O.S.No.4/2006 and O.S.No.15/2006 and submitted that the suits having been dismissed, the 1st Respondent cannot claim the right of filing Form No.VII and in any event, in view of dismissal of suits O.S.No.4/2006 and O.S.15/2006, the District Registrar ought to have simultaneously considered Form No.VII filed by the Appellants. 25. In response, Mr. S.Mani, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent has submitted that on seeing paper advertisement on 05.01.2006, notifying the election by the rival group scheduled to be held on 26.01.2006, suit O.S.No.4/2006 was filed and after filing the suit and on verification, the 1st Respondent Church Society came to know that none of the persons were members of the 1st Respondent Church Society and therefore the said suit was withdrawn under the impression that they have formed similar society having registered Society at Odaikarai. As far as the suit in O.S.No.15/2006 is concerned, the 1st respondent has denied filing of any such suit. 26. We do not propose to go into the merits of the contention in respect of the filing of the suits in O.S.No.4/2006 and O.S.No.15/2006. Suffice it to note that dismissal of O.S.No.4/2006 would not in any way advance the case of the Appellants. As we have observed earlier, if the Appellants are aggrieved by the election held by the District Registrar, the same ought to have been challenged only before the competent civil court. 27. Coming to the impugned order of District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, dated 15.03.2006, in W.P.(MD)No.2144/2006, by the order dated 06.03.2006, the Court has directed the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, to consider the representation of the Appellants and to pass orders in accordance with law. But, it appears, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, without verifying whether the Managing Committee constituted, which appointed Correspondents, were recognised by the District Registrar or not, approved Appellants 2 and 3 as Correspondents. But, it appears, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, without verifying whether the Managing Committee constituted, which appointed Correspondents, were recognised by the District Registrar or not, approved Appellants 2 and 3 as Correspondents. C.M.S. Evangelical Society at Odaikarai and the election of officer bearers in the election purportedly held on 26.01.2006 was unrecognised and not being approved by the District Registrar. In our considered view, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, ought to have verified whether the election of office bearers was approved by the District Registrar and without verifying the same, on 15.03.2006, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, hastily passed the impugned proceedings accepting the proposal of appointments of Appellants 2 and 3 as Correspondents and the same is liable to be quashed. It is relevant to note that the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, has not even added a rider that the order of approval would be subject to change in case if it was found to be incorrect. Likewise, On 25.09.2006, the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, has passed the proceedings M.M.No.874/A5/08, approving the 3rd Appellant as Correspondent of CMS Elementary School at Alwarthirunagari and the same is unsustainable. 28. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, 15.03.2006 and the proceedings of the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin, dated 25.09.2006 and the consequential orders passed by him and directed the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tiruneveli, to approve the Correspondents nominated by the 1st Respondent Church Society as per their proposals dated 13.02.2006 and we confirm the same. We are also confirming the observations of the learned single Judge that any appointment or reinstatement made by the unrecognised Managing Committee of the Appellants as not valid in the eye of law. 29. Confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. The District Elementary Educational Officers, Tiruneveli and Tuticorin are directed to approve the Correspondents nominated by the 1st Respondent Society. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 in W.A.(MD)Nos.22 to 24 of 2008 are also dismissed and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2008 in W.A.(MD)Nos.22 to 24 of 2008 are closed.