Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1501 (MAD)

A. A. Subbaraja v. A. K. D. Dharmakrishna Raja

2008-04-30

R.BANUMATHI, S.MANIKUMAR

body2008
Judgment :- S. Manikumar, J. Mr. Pala.Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar and therefore, notice is waived. By consent of parties, the Civil Revision Petition and the Writ Appeals are taken up for final disposal. 2. The dispute in the Civil Revision Petition and the Writ Appeals revolves around the appointment of Trustee-Manager and Secretaryship of the educational institutions established and administered by a Charitable Trust namely, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharma Raja Education Charity Trust Rajapalayam founded by a philanthropist A.K.D. Dharmakrishna Raja of Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 3. As the issues involved in the Writ Appeals and the Civil Revision Petition relate to administration and management of trust properties, mainly educational institutions run by the Trust and as common question of facts and law are involved, the Civil Revision Petition as well as the Writ Appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. For the purpose of convenience, the contesting parties, viz., A.A.Subbaraja (Civil Revision Petitioner) and Sri.A.K.D.Dharmakrishnaraja (1st respondent in Civil Revision Petition and appellants in both the writ appeals) are referred to as petitioner and first respondent, as per the cause title in the Civil Revision Petition. For convenience sake, the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District is referred to as the 2nd respondent. 4. The civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 12.02.2008, made in I.A.No.399 of 2007 in the scheme suit in O.S.No.7/1953, on the file of the District Judge, Virudhunagar District, at Srivilliputtur, filed by Mr. A.K.D. Dharmakrishnaraja, the first respondent in the revision petition, to nominate him as trustee manager with a further direction to hand over the Secretaryship held by the petitioner for the colleges and schools of the trust. By the above said order, the Scheme Court, has appointed A.K.D. Dharmakrishna Raja, the first respondent as Trust Manager/Managing Trustee for a period of three years from the date of assumption of office. The petitioner A.A. Subbaraja has been directed to hand over the Secretaryship to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed the revision petition. 5. The petitioner claiming himself to be the Secretary of the School Committee for Sri. The petitioner A.A. Subbaraja has been directed to hand over the Secretaryship to the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed the revision petition. 5. The petitioner claiming himself to be the Secretary of the School Committee for Sri. Rao Bhagadur A.K.D. Dharmaraja boys High School and Girls Higher Secondary School filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.328 and 329 of 2008 and sought for a Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order in R.C.No.8557/A1/2007, dated 24.12.2007 on the file of the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, as null and void, ab initio and consequently, direct the said educational Authority to approve the School Committees of the above said schools, as per the resolution dated 25.07.2007 of the educational Agency, viz., Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Education Charity Trust. 6. By a common order, dated 13.02.2008, the learned Single Judge has disposed of both the Writ Petitions, by observing that there is a dispute regarding the constitution of the School Committee for the respective schools and until the dispute is resolved by a competent Civil Court, the educational authority has no power to reject the proposal sent by the revision petitioner. The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order of the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, dated 24.12.2007, granted liberty to the respondents in the writ petitions to refer the dispute either to the Civil Court for decision and observed that it is open to the Civil Court to whom the dispute is referred to or to the Government to make an interim arrangement as provided in Section 53 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. If no such interim arrangement is made by the Civil Court or by the Government, the present school committee has got right to function as the School Committee, pending disposal of the dispute by the Civil Court. The learned single Judge has further observed that until the dispute is resolved by the civil Court, the second respondent educational authority has no power to reject the proposal. Aggrieved by the above orders, the first respondent, Sri. A.K.D. Dharmakrishnaraja, has preferred the Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.298 and 299 of 2008. 7. Brief facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows: Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Education Charity Trust was founded by Sri.Rao Bhagadur A.K.D.Dharmakrishnaraja of Rajapalayam. Aggrieved by the above orders, the first respondent, Sri. A.K.D. Dharmakrishnaraja, has preferred the Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.298 and 299 of 2008. 7. Brief facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows: Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Education Charity Trust was founded by Sri.Rao Bhagadur A.K.D.Dharmakrishnaraja of Rajapalayam. For the management of the trust, a scheme decree was passed in O.S.No.7 of 1953, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai. The said decree challenged in C.S.No.29 of 1956, was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 29.04.1967 in C.S.A.No.42 of 1961. The Trust is running six Educational Institutions, viz., A.K.D. Dharma Raja Womens College, Smt. Sakkaniamma College of Education for Women, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharma Raja Girls, Higher Secondary School, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Boys High School, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Girls Middle School No.1, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Primary School and Smt.Sakkaniamma Dharma Raja Nursery School. The Scheme Decree passed in O.S.No.7 of 1953 was subsequently modified by this Court periodically. According to the petitioner, as per Clause 3 of the Scheme Decree, the Managing Trustee shall be appointed by the District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, from among the male members of the founder family and according to seniority and the right of five sons (Sri.D.K.Raju, Sri.A.K.D.Venkata Raja, Sri.A.K.D.Balarama Raja, Sri. A.K.D. Alagar Raja, and A.K.D. Rengasmy Raja) of the founder and the male members of each branch to hold office for a period of three years in rotation by turn, by excluding any such members, who shall be disqualified (a) if he has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude (b) if he is an undischarged insolvent and c) if he is proved to have acted to the prejudice of the Trust by instituting Court proceedings except for money or other claim due to him from the Trust and unlawfully withheld by the Trustees. 8. Before the Scheme Court, in the interlocutory application, Sri. A.K.D. Dharmakrishnaraja, the 1st respondent has further submitted that all the five sons of the founder have expired and he is the son of the first branch, viz., Sri.D.K.Raju; Sri. A.K.D. Venkatarajas only son A.K.D. Dharmakrishnaraja is also dead and his son is the 4th respondent herein; Sri. 8. Before the Scheme Court, in the interlocutory application, Sri. A.K.D. Dharmakrishnaraja, the 1st respondent has further submitted that all the five sons of the founder have expired and he is the son of the first branch, viz., Sri.D.K.Raju; Sri. A.K.D. Venkatarajas only son A.K.D. Dharmakrishnaraja is also dead and his son is the 4th respondent herein; Sri. A.K.D. Balaramarajas is dead and his son viz., A.K.D.B. Gobalakrishnama Raja is also dead and is son is the 5th respondents therein, Sri. A.K.D. Alagar Raja is also dead and his son is the 6th respondent therein; Sri. A.K.D. Rengasamy Raja is also dead and his eldest son A.R. Ramakrishna Raja through his power of attorney Thiru. A.R. Dhasaratha Raja is the 1st respondent therein. 9. It is the further case of the 1st respondent that Sri. A.A. Subbaraja (Revision Petitioner) was appointed as Managing Trustee, by the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, by order dated 28.07.2004 in I.A.No.111 of 2004 and based on the said orders, he assumed office on 05.08.2004. As per the scheme decree, the Managing Trustee shall hold office for a period of three years and therefore, on completion of the term, Sri. A.R. Ramakrishnaraja, the eldest son of A.K.D. Rangasamyraja, the fifth son of the founder, through his power of attorney, Sri. A.R. Dhasaratharaja has to succeed to the office, as Trustee-Manager from the petitioner, viz., A.A. Subbaraja. Since the said A.R. Ramakrishnaraja, has declined to assume the office of the Managing Trustee and to that effect, he has given a letter, dated 23.07.2007, declaring that they have no objection for appointing the 1st respondent as Managing Trustee from the first branch of the Founders family, the 1st respondent has prayed for a direction to nominate and appoint him as the Trustee Manager and consequently, direct the revision petitioner to hand over the Secretaryship of the Committee of Schools and Colleges for a period of three years. 10. It is the further case of the first respondent that the founder of the trust had formed the educational trust with the sole intention that the educational institutions should be maintained and administered by the trustee-manager and that if only the trustee manager administers the trust, the object of the trust can be fulfilled or otherwise, it will lead to chaos. Till the fourth respondent assumed office of the trust manager during the year 1998, the managing trustee alone was administering the educational institutions of the trust as secretary of the school/college committees. By passing some resolutions, the petitioner under the guise of inducting himself as Secretary of the committees of the schools and colleges was administering the educational institutions of the trust on his own accord. This is done with a view to prevent the next incumbent managing trustee to administer the educational institutions. 11. It is the further grievance of the 1st respondent that by this process, the object of the founder and the scheme decree is defeated. He has further submitted that the intention of the Founder and as per the scheme decree, each branch of the founders family has to administer the educational trust independently without the intervention of the members of the other branch of the founders family. 12. The revision petitioner, A.A. Subbaraja in his counter affidavit has submitted that during his tenure, he has established the following educational institutions of the trust: 1. A.K.D. Dharama Raja Womens College and A.K.D. Sakkaniammal College of Education for Women. To augment revenue he has put up shopping complex, vegetable market complex etc., It is the further case of the petitioner that by order dated 08.11.2007 in I.A.No.111 of 2004 passed by the Scheme Court, he assumed office on 05.08.2004. After the expiry of three years on 04.08.2007, he had written a letter dated 23.07.2007 to the ex-officio trustee Collector and sent a reminder on 14.08.2007 to take charge. Till the date of filing of the revision petition, he did not receive any reply from the Collector and in the mean time, he has received the notice in I.A.No.399 of 2007 in O.S.No.7 of 1953 filed by the 1st respondent. According to him, the next turn of office of Trustee-Manager should go to the 5th branch of the founder, and they are duty bound to implement the intention of the founder, otherwise their conduct and failure to accept the office of the Trustee Manager, without the leave of the Court on valid grounds, amounts to dereliction of their responsibility and bye passing the scheme decree. It is also the case of the petitioner that all the male members of the 5th branch are necessary parties and in the absence of impleading them, the petition is not maintainable. 13. It is also the case of the petitioner that all the male members of the 5th branch are necessary parties and in the absence of impleading them, the petition is not maintainable. 13. It is further contended that the college and the school committees constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules respectively are functioning in accordance with law and there is no legal impediment in carrying on the administration and the day to day activities of the educational institutions. The petitioner has further submitted that the trust board, as educational agency alone has got the authority to decide the further course of action after the new trustee-manager assumes charge of the trust and therefore, the first respondent has no locus standi to seek for any relief. 14. The revision petitioner has further submitted that the contents of the letter dated 23.07.2007 of the 5th branch lacks truth and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. According to him, the members of the fifth respondent branch are bound to approach the scheme Court, by proper and independent affidavits and petitions, since the scheme decree does not provide for disowning their responsibility jointly in the form of a letter. 15. It is further contended that the founder had established another charitable trust, by name, Rajapalayam Chatram and the administration of such trust is also governed by a scheme decree in O.S.No.2 of 1958 passed by the Sub-Court Ramnad at Madurai. In the said trust, the office of Hereditary Huqdar should be held by the founders family members. During the period between 16.07.1990 to 15.07.1993, when the first respondent was holding the office of Huqdar, he had committed mis-appropriation of trust money by paying fine amount of Rs.4000/- from the Trust fund, imposed on him in STC.No.1286/91 by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Srivilliputhur on 07.06.1993. Though the first respondent has succeeded in the criminal appeal and the fine amount was ordered to be refunded, he has not taken steps to get back the amount from the treasury and remit the same to the trust account. For recovering the said amount, A.K.D. Venkataramana Raja, the incumbent Trustee-Manager, has to institute a Civil Suit in O.S.No.355 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivillipputhur. For recovering the said amount, A.K.D. Venkataramana Raja, the incumbent Trustee-Manager, has to institute a Civil Suit in O.S.No.355 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivillipputhur. The said suit was decreed against the first respondent on 11.08.2000 and the appeal filed by him, in A.S.No.31/2000 in the Court of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur was also dismissed. Finally, the trust could recover the amount from him only by filing E.P.No.38 of 2002. 16. It is further alleged that the appellant in utter disregard to the terms of the scheme decree in O.S.No.2 of 1958 had acted singly in passing resolutions on his own will and accord and acted against the scheme decree. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file I.A.No.417 of 2002 in O.S.No.2 of 1958 in the scheme-court for his disqualification. The Court after prima facie satisfaction, granted an interim order in the other petition, in I.A.No.416 of 2002, that the first respondents son should be appointed as interim-huqdar in the place of his father, until the petition for disqualification was disposed of. However, the said petition in I.A.No.417 of 2002 was dismissed on a technical ground and in the revision petition in C.R.P.No.720 of 2003, liberty was given to file a fresh application in his individual capacity. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed a fresh disqualification petition in I.A.No.707 of 2003 and the same is pending. The petitioner has further submitted that when another male member A.K.D. Venkataramana Raja interfered with the functioning of the petitioner as secretary of the college, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.369 of 2000, on the file of the District Munsif, Srivilliputhur and when the matter was taken upto this Court, in a decision reported in 2007 (3) (LW) 617 , the High Court found fault with the then trustee-manager, A.K.D. Venkataramana Raja. He further submitted that functioning of a validly appointed secretary of the college will not cause interference with the administration of the trust. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.399/2007 filed by the first respondent. 17. He further submitted that functioning of a validly appointed secretary of the college will not cause interference with the administration of the trust. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.399/2007 filed by the first respondent. 17. On consideration of pleadings and submissions advanced by the rival contestants to the post of Trustee Manager, by order dated 12.02.2008, the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar, at Srivilliputhur allowed the I.A.No.399 of 2007 filed by the 1st respondent herein and appointed him, as trustee-manager for a period of three years, from the date of assuming office and further directed that the petitioner should hand over all the records to him. 18. Brief facts in W.A(MD)Nos.298 and 299 of 2008 are as follows: Thiru. A.A. Subbaraja, the revision petitioner, filed writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.10397 and 10398/2007 seeking for a direction to the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District to approve the school committees of Boys High School, Rajapalayam and Girls Higher Secondary School respectively as per the resolution dated 25.07.2007 of the educational agency and consequently for a direction to release the pending staff grant of the above schools. 19. In the above writ petitions, the petitioner has contended that he had submitted a proposal on 26.07.2007 before the educational Authority for approval and has cleared the all queries raised by the authority as early as on 30.11.2007 and that there is no impediment in granting the approval of the school committees. 20. Considering the averments made in the above writ petitions, a learned single Judge by common order dated 12.12.2007 directed the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District to consider the proposals submitted by the petitioner, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order. 21. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.10398 and 10389 of 2007 dated 12.12.2007, the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8557/A-1/2007, dated 24.12.2007, rejected the proposals for approval of the respective school committees, on the ground that the tenure of the trust manager has expired on 04.08.2007 and therefore, the constitution of the new school committees cannot be approved. 22. 22. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, in rejecting the proposals for approval of the school committees, the petitioner has filed two writ petitions in W.P. (MD)No.328 and 329 of 2008 respectively. A learned single Judge of this Court after going through the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules made thereunder observed that the dispute relates to the constitution of the school committee, and therefore, the matter has to be referred to a competent Civil Court for resolution of the dispute. The learned single Judge has further observed that until the dispute is resolved by a competent civil Court, the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar has no power to reject the proposals submitted by the petitioner. Giving liberty to the respondents therein to refer the dispute to a competent civil court for appropriate decision, the writ petitions were allowed and the orders of rejection of the proposals were set aside. Aggrieved by the directions of the learned single Judge, allowing the said A.A.Subbaraja, the petitioner to continue as secretary of the school committees, the first respondent has preferred the present appeals. 23. Assailing the order dated 12.02.2008 made in the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.399 of 2007 in O.S.No.7/1953, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar, Mr. N.S. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner was nominated as a trustee manager as per the order dated 26.11.2004 in I.A.No.111/2004, by the Scheme Court that the petitioner took charge on 05.08.2004 and received the trust records from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi representing the District Collector/Ex-officio trustee. After completion of three years period, he has demitted the office of Trustee-Manager and handed over the records to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, on 08.12.2007, as per Clause 31 of the scheme decree. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the trust is an educational agency as defined under Section 2 read with Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and is running various educational institutions. The schools and colleges established by the trust are governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Act. The schools and colleges established by the trust are governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Act. Referring to Sections 15, 16,17 and 18 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and rules 12 and 13 of the rules framed thereunder and inviting the attention of this Court to the resolutions passed by the Trust Board, enclosed in the typed set of papers, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the school committees for the various schools and college committee were duly constituted by the managing trustee and as per the resolutions passed by the Trust Board, the petitioner has been nominated as the secretary of the respective educational committees. According to the learned counsel, as per the provisions of the above statutes, the educational agency, namely, the trust board alone is competent to constitute the school/college committees and in the absence of any challenge of the resolutions passed by the trust Board, the tenure of office of the secretary of the respective committees, as provided under the enactments cannot be disturbed by the first respondent. 25. He further submitted that when the scheme decree was framed in the year 1953, there was no provision in the scheme regarding the formation of school and college committees and for the appointment of secretary and members of the respective committees. After coming into force of the enactments regulating the functioning of the recognized schools and colleges, constitution of the respective committees is mandatory as per the statutory provisions and therefore, there is no illegality in constituting the respective committees by the trust board which has nominated the revision petitioner as the secretary for a period of three years from 05.08.2007. 26. He further submitted that the trust board being the educational agency alone has got power to re-constitue the committees and elect the president and the secretary as the case may be and therefore, the order of the learned District Judge, Virudhunagar District, at Srivilliputhur in I.A.No.399/2007 in O.S.No.7/1953, directing the petitioner to hand over the secretaryship of the educational institutions to the first respondent, is contrary to the statutes governing the educational institutions and hence without jurisdiction. 27. 27. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that even in the letter dated 23.07.2007, addressed to the District Collector Ex-officio Trustee, the petitioner had only requested him to take charge of the Trustee managership and he had never requested the District Collector to be the secretary of the committees duly constituted as per the statutes. It is also the further case of the petitioner that in correspondence dated 18.11.2007 and 08.12.2007, addressed to the Ex-officio trustee, the District Collector, the petitioner has only requested the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, to take charge of the trustee manager from the revision petitioner and there was no correspondence, relating to handing over of the secretaryship of the school and college committees. 28. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the involvement in the criminal case and the failure to take steps to collect the fine amount from the criminal court and the conduct of the first respondent in remitting the same after filing of the execution petition amounts to disqualification of the first respondent from holding the office of Trustee-manager. He has also submitted that the first respondent in utter disregard to the terms of the scheme decree in O.S.No.2 of 1958 had acted singly in passing resolutions on his own will and accord and acted against the scheme decree and that petition in I.A.No.707 of 2003 in O.S.No.2 of 1958 for disqualification is pending consideration. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that having regard to the fact that there is no provision in the scheme decree regarding constitution of school/college committees, the learned District Judge has erred in passing orders beyond the scheme decree, when the post of secretary of the educational institutions is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Colleges (Regulation) Act,1973, the Court below has no jurisdiction to issue any direction with regard to secretaryship of the school/college committees. Therefore, he submitted that the direction to hand over the secretaryship to the first respondent is wholly without jurisdiction. Therefore, he submitted that the direction to hand over the secretaryship to the first respondent is wholly without jurisdiction. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the application of the petitioner, I.A.No.409 of 2007 seeking for a direction to nominate him as trustee manager for a period of three years from the date of taking charge of office was pending consideration, the lower Court without considering the same, due to extraneous reasons has passed the impugned order meddling with the secretaryship of the committees. He further submitted that the scheme Court has no jurisdiction, to interfere with the functioning of the school/college committees duly constituted by the trust board and approved by the educational authorities, under the respective enactments. 30. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions ought to have seen that the first respondent is the next Trustee manager as per the turn of rotation provided in the scheme decree and therefore, ought to have dismissed the writ petitions for non-joinder of necessary and proper party. He further submitted that the directions of the learned single Judge to refer the dispute to the civil Court for resolving the dispute and simultaneously setting aside the orders of the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District, would run contrary to each other and the observation of the learned Judge that "until the dispute is resolved by the Civil Court, the respondent has no power to reject the proposal is erroneous and allowing the petitioner to continue to function as the Secretary of the School Committee, without hearing the first respondent is wholly unwarranted. 31. Learned Senior counsel has further submitted that as per the scheme decree, the managing trustee, shall be the secretary of the school committee/college and the petitioner, A.A.Subbaraja, having completed his tenure as early as on 04.08.2007, instead of handing over the charge of secretaryship to the trustee manager has chosen to pass resolutions just ten days before the expiry of his tenure and erroneously claimed to be the secretary of the college/school committees. He further submitted that pendency of the application for nomination of the trustee-manager before the scheme Court and filing of the counter affidavit by the petitioner has been deliberately suppressed before this Court, in the writ proceedings and therefore, the petitioner who has not approached this Court with clean hands is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petitions. 32. Referring to Clauses 21, 22, 23 and 31 of the scheme decree dated 29.04.1967, the learned senior counsel further submitted that in the light of the inbuilt provisions in the scheme decree relating to the activities of the Trust and the administration of the trust properties and having regard to the power of the trust manager to appoint the staff of the schools and punish them for misconduct, the Trust Manager by virtue of his office is the Secretary of the school/college committee, as per the scheme decree and there cannot be two different persons, one for the purpose of maintaining the properties of Trust and the other for administering the educational institutions. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent further submitted that as per the turn, the fourth respondent branch namely A.A. Subbaraja, the petitioner is an out going trustee and therefore, by rotation, the firth respondent has to succeed to the trust. Since the male members of the fifth branch had submitted that they were not interested to assume the office of Trustee-manager, the first respondent has rightly been nominated by the District Court in I.A.No.399/2007 in O.S.No.7/1953 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. 33. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the unwillingness of the male members of the fourth respondent branch has already been expressed in the form of a letter and memorandum filed in the scheme court and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that it should be in the form of affidavits is not tenable. 34. Before dealing with the rival submissions, we deem it appropriate to extract certain clauses from the scheme decree framed in C.S.No.29 of 1956, (O.S.No.7/1953) on the file of the District Court, Madurai, dated 05.05.1961 as amended by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by a decree in C.S.A.No.42 of 1961, dated 29.04.1967. “1) The Trust shall be known as “Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharma Raja Education Charity Trust, Rajapalayam. “1) The Trust shall be known as “Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharma Raja Education Charity Trust, Rajapalayam. 2) The propesrties of the Trust and the management of its affairs shall vest in a committee of five trustees as specified below: i) The Trustee-Manager, ii) The District Collector of Ramanathapuram who shall be Trustee ex-officio iii)The Municipal Chairman of Rajapalayam who shall be Trustee ex-officio iv) A Citizen of Rajapalayam to be appointed by the District Judge, Ramanathapuram from the persons nominated by the male members of the Founders family and v) A resident of Rajapalayam co-opted by the four other Trustees.” 3. The Trustee Manager shall be nominated by the District Judge of Ramanathapuram from among the male members of the Founders family according to seniority and the right of each of the five sons of the Founder and the male members of each branch to hold the office for a period of three years in rotation by turns but excluding any such member who shall be disqualified (a) if he has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude (b) if he is an undischarged insolvent and c) if he is proved to have acted to the prejudice of the Trust by instituting Court proceedings except for money or other claim due to him from the Trust and unlawfully withheld by the Trustees. 7. For appointing a trustee from the persons nominated by male members of the founders family, the District Judge of Ramanathapuram shall receive from the adult member of founders family connected with the founder by male descent and above 21 years of age nominations of suitable citizens residing at Rajapalayam. Every adult member shall be entitled to suggest one name for the office. But where the person suggested is a near relation of any of the members of the founders family qualified to propose names like son-in-law, brother-in-law, father-in-law maternal uncle or paternal uncle or direct cousins he shall also suggest from among the residents of Rajapalayam a non relation, and the District Judge having regard to the then composition of the remaining members of the Trust Board shall choose the nominated Trustee from among the names proposed bearing in mind the principle adumbrated in the next clause. 35. 35. As per Clause 9, the committee of trustees shall administer the trust according to the scheme and will be entitled to frame rules and bye-laws for the conduct of its affair including rules for the meeting not provided for herunder. As per Clause 21, the trustee-manager will have the right to make appointments to the staff of the various schools at all grades subject to the post of approval of the Trust Board. 36. As per Clause 22, the trustee manager will have the power to punish the servants of the Trust Board either with fine up to Rs.3 or with suspension for a month. All other punishments to be imposed upon them can only be imposed by the Trust Board and every servant of the Trust Board punished by the Trustee-manager will have a right to appeal within two months to the trust Board. 37. In exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 23 of the scheme, the trustee manager is entitled to nominate a deputy to act for him under a deed for a limited period of three months at a time. If he could not act as a trustee beyond that period he should be deemed to have vacated his office unless he resigns the office by a letter. Such nomination of a deputy can take place only twice during his period of office of three years. The powers given under this scheme or by rules framed by the Trust Board exercisable by the trustee manager shall also be exercisable by his deputy for the time being and by Captain Dr Marthandam who has been nominated for the first period of three years to the place of Trustee-Manager or any one who may be nominated in his place. 38. Clause 30 enables any of the five trustees to apply to the District Judge of Ramanathapuram for any directions in regard to any matters of difficulty experienced by the trustee in the working of the scheme or in regard to the correct interpretation of any provision of the scheme, and the District Judge of Ramanathapurm shall have power to give all such directions for the proper and efficient working of this scheme. 39. 39. Clause 31 states that the trustee manager on expiry of the term of office, shall forthwith hand over charge to the collector of Ramanathapuram, an Ex-officio trustee, who will be in interim charge and hand over charge of the office of the trustee manager to the succeeding trustee manager appointed by the District Judge of Ramanathapuram as herein before provided. 40. A reading of the scheme in its entirety makes it clear that the properties of the trust and the management of its affairs are vested with five trustees namely, trustee manager, the Collector of Ramanathapuram District, as Ex-officio trustee, Municipal Chairman of Rajapalayam, a citizen of Rajapalayam nominated by the male members of the founders family, a resident of Rajapalayam coopted by four other trustees. The Trustee Manager shall be nominated by the District Judge of Ramanathapuram from among the male members of the Founders family according to seniority and the right of each of the five sons of the Founder and the male members of each branch to hold the office for a period of three years in rotation by turn. 41. On completion of the tenure of three years by the revision petitioner on 04.08.2007, the first respondent has taken out an application in I.A.No.399 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District, to appoint him as trustee manager and consequently for a direction to the petitioner to hand over the secretaryship of the committee of schools and colleges for a period of three years from the date of assuming his of charge as trustee manager and the scheme court has nominated the first respondent as Trustee manager of the Trust. 42. In the above factual background, and in the light of the scheme decree, we shall now consider as to whether I.A.No.399 of 2007 filed by the first respondent, without impleading all the male members of the family of the 5th branch of the founders family, is maintainable or not. It is seen from the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers that A.A. Subbaraja, the revision petitioner, being a male member of the 4th branch was nominated by the District Judge, Ramanathapuram by his order in I.A.No.111/2004 in O.S.No.7/53 dated 28.07.2004 has assumed office as trustee manager on 05.08.2004. It is seen from the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers that A.A. Subbaraja, the revision petitioner, being a male member of the 4th branch was nominated by the District Judge, Ramanathapuram by his order in I.A.No.111/2004 in O.S.No.7/53 dated 28.07.2004 has assumed office as trustee manager on 05.08.2004. Ever since his nomination, he had been functioning as Secretary of the school/college committees without constitution of any committees as per the procedure hitherto followed. His tenure has expired on 04.08.2007 and as per the scheme decree, the next person to hold the office of the trustee manager for a period of three years in rotation by turn is Thiru. A.R. Ramakrishnaraja through his power of attorney, Thiru. A.R. Dasaratharaja. 43. Perusal of the memorandum submitted by the said A.R.Ramakrishnaraja reveals that though as per the scheme decree, the trusteeship has to be taken over by the male members of their branch, (5th Branch), due to various personal reasons their branch was unable to accept the trusteeship for the term commencing from 05.08.2007. It is also evident that the said A.R. Ramakrishna Raja, senior male member of the 5th branch has given a letter to the first respondent expressing "no objection", for appointing anybody from the first branch of the founders family, as per the scheme decree. Clause 3 of the scheme decree, contemplates that the male member of each branch to hold office of Trustee manager for a period of three years in rotation by turn. Therefore, by rotation, the next turn automatically goes only to the male member of the first branch of the founders family. Therefore the right to the office of Trustee manager and the objection to the line of succession could only be from the eligible male member of the 5th branch. The contention of the petitioner that the male members of the 5th branch have disowned their responsibility to be the trustee manager and that their unwillingness should be only in the form of an affidavit and not by a letter does not merit acceptance. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent that there is no specific form provided in the scheme decree, to express the unwillingness to assume the office. Moreover, the senior male member of the 5th Branch of the founders family has filed a memorandum in the lower Court. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent that there is no specific form provided in the scheme decree, to express the unwillingness to assume the office. Moreover, the senior male member of the 5th Branch of the founders family has filed a memorandum in the lower Court. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the intention or unwillingness of the male members of the 5th branch, and the petitioner is not legally entitled to stake his claim for the office of trustee manager. If any one of the male members of the 5th Branch had any grievance of their right being deprived of by the first respondent, by this time, they would have certainly staked their claim independently before the scheme Court or by filing an application for impleading themselves in the proceedings instituted by the first respondent. In the absence of any objection from their side and having regard to the fact that they have voluntarily relinquished their right to hold the office of Trustee manager for three years from 5.8.2007, we are of considered view that the application filed by the first respondent for his nomination, as Trustee manager is maintainable in law. When the petitioner has objected to claim of the first respondent, citing the line of succession by rotation in turn, we are unable to comprehend as to how he can stake his claim to the office of Trustee-Manager, bye-passing the claim of all the male members of the first three branches of the founders family. 44. As per Clause 3 of the scheme decree, if there are no eligible and qualified male members in the fifth branch, who have relinquished their right by rotation, the office of the trusteeship has to go only to the eligible and qualified male member of the first branch. However, a male member from the founders family has every right to object to the claim made by the person, in succession, on the grounds of disqualification. However, a male member from the founders family has every right to object to the claim made by the person, in succession, on the grounds of disqualification. A male member belonging to the founders family suffers from disqualification, if, (a)he has been convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude b) if he is an undischarged insolvent and c) if he is proved to have acted to the prejudice of the trust by instituting court proceedings except for money or other claim due to him from the trust and unlawfully withheld by the trustees. 45. In the light of specific parameters let us now examine as to whether the first respondent has suffered any disqualification in terms of Clause 3 of the scheme decree. 46. There is no evidence to prove that the petitioner has ever involved in any criminal offence and convicted by a criminal court for an offence involving moral turpitude. He is not an undischarged insolvent. The serious objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relate to two instances, namely, the conviction of the first respondent in STC No.1286 of 1991 in a criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate III, Virudhunagar on 07.06.1993, where the learned Judge had imposed a fine of Rs.4000/-. It is not in dispute that on the appeal preferred by the first respondent, the conviction has been set aside and the appellate court had directed the fine amount to be refunded to him. It is needless to say that on acquittal, the conviction and the stigma are wiped out. 47. The allegation made against the first respondent is that, he should have taken adequate steps to get back the fine amount from the Court and remit the same to the Trust account. For the failure to do so, the succeeding trustee A.K.D. Venkataramana Raja has filed a suit against the first respondent in O.S.No.355 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivillipputhur and the same was also decreed. Since the appeal filed by the first respondent, in A.S.No.31/2000 in the Court of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur did not find favour with him. Though revision petitioner has contended that I.A.No.707/2003 in O.S.No.2 of 1958for disqualification on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanad at Madurai, is pending enquiry there is no order disqualifying the first respondent. 48. Since the appeal filed by the first respondent, in A.S.No.31/2000 in the Court of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur did not find favour with him. Though revision petitioner has contended that I.A.No.707/2003 in O.S.No.2 of 1958for disqualification on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanad at Madurai, is pending enquiry there is no order disqualifying the first respondent. 48. Per contra, it is evident from the impugned order in the Civil revision petition that the first respondent was implicated in a criminal case in STC.No.1286/91 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Srivilliputhur for a dispute relating to a compound wall, when he was the trustee manager of Chatram trust, subject matter of scheme decree in O.S.No.2 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Court, Ramnad at Madurai. Finding substance in the argument of the first respondent that by the time, when the first respondent was acquitted by the appellate court, his tenure as trustee manager had already come to an end and therefore, the next incumbent to the office of the trustee manager alone ought to have taken necessary steps to get back the fine amount and having regard to the remittance of the fine amount by the first respondent to the chatram, which fact was also admitted by the revision petitioner, the scheme court has found that the first respondent cannot be said to have been acted prejudicial to the interests of the Trust by instituting any court proceedings. Admittedly, the first respondent has not been implicated in any criminal case with reference to Rao Bahadur trust, the subject matter of the present litigation. 49. As stated supra, a person is said to be disqualified only if he is proved to have acted prejudicial to the interest of the trust and by instituting court proceedings, except for money or other claim due to him from the Trust and unlawfully withheld by the Trustees. Admittedly, there is no averment nor any iota of evidence to prove that the first respondent, has acted in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the trust by instituting any court proceedings except for money or other claim due to him from the Trust and unlawfully withheld by the Trustees. 50. Admittedly, there is no averment nor any iota of evidence to prove that the first respondent, has acted in any manner prejudicial to the interest of the trust by instituting any court proceedings except for money or other claim due to him from the Trust and unlawfully withheld by the Trustees. 50. Having regard to the specific acts enumerated in clause 3 of the scheme decree which constitute disqualification, we are of the considered opinion that mere involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case which ended in acquittal, would not come within the parameters of disqualification as per the scheme decree. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent suffers from disqualification cannot be countenanced and there is no infirmity in the finding of the Court below. 51. Reading of the scheme decree in entirety makes it clear that there is no specific provision dealing with constitution of school/college committees, the appointment of Secretary, President and the members of the committees, to regulate the functioning of the educational institutions. Clause-31 of the scheme decree mandates that on expiry of three years the trustee manager shall forthwith handover charge to the Collector of Ramanathampuram, Ex-officio Trustee, who will be in interim charge and hand over charge to the succeeding trustee-manager appointed by the District Judge of Ramanathapuram. 52. Over the span of years, since 1953 the trust has established A.K.D. Dharma Raja Womens College, Smt.Sakkaniamma College of Education for Women, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Girls, Higher Secondary School, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Boys High School, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Girls Middle School No.1, Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja Primary School and Smt. Sakkaniamma Dharma Raja Nursery School. Clauses, 9, 11,21 and 22 of the scheme decree as confirmed by this Court, in no certain terms confer the authority and powers on the committee of five trustees to be the custodian of all the properties of the Trust and the trustee-manager has got absolute right to make appointments of the staff of various schools in all grades subject to the approval of the trust board. 53. 53. A reading clause-9 makes it clear that the committee of the trustees shall administer the trust according to the scheme and will be entitled to frame rules and bye-laws for the conduct of its affairs including rules for the meeting not provided for hereunder. Further, if there is any difficulty experienced by any trustee in the working of the scheme or in regard to the correct interpretation of any provision of the scheme, the District Judge of Ramanathapuram shall have power to give all such directions for the proper and efficient working of this scheme, on the application made by the Trustee. 54. Admittedly, the term of office of the petitioner has come to an end on 04.08.2007 and just 10 days prior to the expiry of the office of the trustee-manager, resolutions seemed to have been passed on 25.07.2007, accepting and approving the newly constituted school/College committees, whereby, the revision petitioner has been nominated as secretary of the schools/colleges established and administered by the trust. Scrutiny of the documents enclosed from pages 1 to 8 of the typed set of papers filed by the revision petitioner, discloses that all the resolutions were said to have been on 25.07.2007, and on subsequent dates. The resolution reads that, "resolved to accept and approve the committee from 05.08.2007 for a period of three years according to Section 11 and Rules 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules made the reunder". 55. It is evident that the petitioner who has been nominated as Trustee manager, as per the orders of the principal District Judge, Virudhunagar by order dated 28.07.2004 in I.A.No.111/2004 in O.S.No.7 of 1953, has acted as the secretary of the School/College committees, by virtue of his office a Trust manager, all along from 24.12.2007, and just 10 days before the completion of his tenure, has suddenly felt the need of school/college committees, as per the Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 and Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and passed some resolutions with the sole intention of continuing as secretary of the School/College committees. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that his term expired on 4.8.2007 and the resolution is to the effect that the secretaryship of the school/college committees will commence from 5.8.2007 for a period of three years. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that his term expired on 4.8.2007 and the resolution is to the effect that the secretaryship of the school/college committees will commence from 5.8.2007 for a period of three years. If the constitution of the school/college committees as per the statutes are required for the administration of the educational institutions, it is not explained by the petitioner either in his pleadings before the Principal District Judge, Viruthunagar, or in the grounds of the revision petitioner even in the arguments, as to how he was recognized by the educational authorities and functioned as secretary of the school/college committees, from 24.12.2007, from the date of his induction as Trustee manager till 4.8.2007. 56. When the proposals for approval were sent by the revision petitioner in the capacity as secretary, the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, in his order dated 25.12.2007, impugned in W.P.Nos.328 and 329 of 2008 has directed the petitioner to produce the nomination order passed by the Principal District Judge, Viruthunagar appointing him as trustee manager, in terms of clause 3 of the scheme decree. He has also sought for the details of handing over of the charges, after the expiry of term of his office by 04.08.2007, as per Clause 31 of scheme decree and proof of appointment as trustee manager, by the District Judge, as per the rotation as provided in the scheme. 57. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the office of the trustee manager and the secretaryship of the school committees are two different offices and having regard to the manner in which the constitution of the school committees has been made at the fag end of the tenure of his office as trustee manager, the District educational authority has raised a serious doubt about the bonafides of the petitioner. The District Educational Officer has further observed that as per Clause 21 of the scheme, the appointing authority of the staff of the schools is the trustee manager and therefore, he alone can be the Secretary of the school committees. The District Educational Officer has further observed that as per Clause 21 of the scheme, the appointing authority of the staff of the schools is the trustee manager and therefore, he alone can be the Secretary of the school committees. Further, he has also come to the notice of the fact that the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam, South Police Station in his certificate dated 20.10.2007, has stated that as against the revision petitioner, a case in Crime No.769/2005 was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 214(b) and 506(2) IPC and the same is pending in C.C.No.104/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. Having regard to the fact that the tenure of the office of the petitioner as trustee manager expired on 04.08.2007 and of his obligation to hand over all the records to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi and of the communication of the Collector, Virudhunagar dated 18.11.2007, the District educational officer, Viruthunagar has taken a decision that the trustee manager appointed by the District Judge alone can convene a trust board to constitute a school committee and therefore the proposals submitted by the revision petitioner cannot be approved. 58. Perusal of the letter MM.No.5648/A2/03/1, 28.02.2004 of the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar shows that based on the order of the District Judge in I.A.No.111/2004 in O.S.No.7 of 1953, dated 28.07.2004, the appointment of the petitioner as correspondent from 05.08.2004 has been approved by the said educational authority and that the petitioner was authorized to receive the staff grant. Ever since the creation of the Trust Board by the scheme decree, the trustee manager namely, the successive male members of each branch of the founders family, by virtue of the office, by rotation alone have acted as secretary of the school/College committees as provided under the scheme, without any deviation. 59. There is no whisper or any complaint from any quarters, much less, from the members of the trust or the beneficiaries of the charitable trust, which runs various educational institutions and engaged in other business activities, that there was mismanagement or mal-administration in the functioning of the educational institutions and no documents have been filed by the petitioner in this regard. The allegation levelled against the first respondent is with respect to some other Trust. The allegation levelled against the first respondent is with respect to some other Trust. If ever there was any difficulty or grievance expressed by any one of the trustees about the working of the Trust, or of the scheme or in regard to the correct interpretation of any provision of the scheme, the District Judge of Ramanathapurm shall have the power to give all such directions for the proper and efficient working of the scheme, on an application made by the aggrieved person. In the case on hand, no materials have been produced before this Court in this regard. Though no difficulty has been expressed in the working of the scheme, by any one of the male members of the founders family, from the conduct of the petitioner, we are able to infer that the somehow the petitioner wants to continue to retain the administration of the educational institutions and under the guise of implementing the statutes governing the functioning of the schools/colleges, have managed to constitute the committees for the purpose of administering the educational institutions. The scheme framed in the year 1953 and has approved by this Court for the last five decades, has successfully been implemented, without any difficulty in administering the educational institutions and the Trustee-Manager, the only member of the founders family in the committee of five Trustees has been managing the educational institutions, as secretary of the school/college committees. If the contention of the petitioner has to be accepted, then a person who is not a male member belonging to the five branches of the founders family can also be appointed as secretary of the school/college committees of the educational institutions and in such circumstances, it would defeat the very object of the Trust. 60. The further contention of the petitioner that the learned District Judge ought to have simultaneously considered filed by the petitioner I.A.No.430/2007 to nominate him as Trustee manager along with I.A.No.399/2007 filed by the first respondent does not merit any consideration for the reasons stated supra. 61. As observed earlier, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination seek for appointment as trustee manager contrary to the scheme, which provides for appointment of the male members of the founders family by rotation. 61. As observed earlier, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination seek for appointment as trustee manager contrary to the scheme, which provides for appointment of the male members of the founders family by rotation. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed his tenure only on 04.08.2007 and his further claim to nominate him as trustee manager for a period of 3 years from the date of taking charge of the office is totally misconceived, and contrary to the provisions of the scheme. Only by virtue of the office of the trustee manager the male member of the founders family can discharge the functions of the Secretary of the school/college committees. The petitioner having held the office of Trustee-manager and discharged the functions of the secretary of the school/college committees cannot at this point of time turn around and say that both the posts are different and that they have to be manned by two different individuals. His contention that the Trustee Manager would administer and manage all the Trust properties, other than the educational institutions and that the secretary nominated by the Trust Board would take care of the educational institutions would be contrary to the intention of the founder and object of the Trust. Therefore, the District Judge is right in directing the petitioner to hand over secretaryship to the trustee manager appointed by him. Therefore, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the District Judge in nominating the first respondent and directing the petitioner to hand over the secretaryship to the first respondent. 62. While testing the correctness of the order passed by the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar dated 24.12.2007, rejecting the proposals for approval of the school committees, the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions, by directing the respondents therein to refer the dispute to a competent Civil Court for taking decision in this regard. The revision petitioner, Mr. A.A. Subbaraja is also the petitioner in the Writ petitions. The revision petitioner, Mr. A.A. Subbaraja is also the petitioner in the Writ petitions. Though the petitioner has objected to the non impleadment of the other male members of the 5th branch of the founders family in the proceeding before the learned District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur regarding the nomination of the first respondent as trustee manager, and having received the notice in I.A.No.399/2007 in O.S.No.7/953 and filed his counter affidavit, on the perusal of the averments made in the writ petitions, it is seen that the revision petitioner, without disclosing the above said facts, has filed the writ petitions seeking for approval of the school committees. 63. It is also seen from the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that the petitioner has not impleaded the rival claimant to the office of the trust manager, who by virtue of the nomination by the District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur is the secretary of the educational institutions as per the scheme. It is explicit in the rejection order of the proposals submitted for approval of the School Committee that the term office of the petitioner as trustee manager has come to an end and that as per Clause 21 of the scheme, the Trust-Manager alone is the competent authority to appoint staff to various schools. When the details relating to the scheme decree was very much available before this Court, though, various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules were referred to in the common order, the learned single Judge ought to have considered that the appointment of trustee manager is governed by scheme decree, framed by a competent civil court and as approved by High Court and the person holding the office of Trustee-manager, during his tenure of office discharge the functions of the secretary also. As the administration of the trust properties are governed by the scheme, which includes educational institutions also, there is need to refer the dispute to the Civil Court. 64. Having observed that the there is a dispute regarding the constitution of the school committee, and given liberty to the respondents therein to refer the dispute to a competent civil court, allowing the petitioner to continue as Secretary, till the dispute is resolved, in our considered view, runs contrary to each other. 64. Having observed that the there is a dispute regarding the constitution of the school committee, and given liberty to the respondents therein to refer the dispute to a competent civil court, allowing the petitioner to continue as Secretary, till the dispute is resolved, in our considered view, runs contrary to each other. On one hand, the learned single Judge has given the liberty to the respondents to refer the dispute to the competent civil court for taking appropriate decision, but at the same time, impliedly directed the educational authority to approve the proposals submitted by the petitioner, by observing that the rejection of the proposal, till the dispute is resolved by the Civil Court is not proper. For the reasons stated supra, we are unable to comprehend the directions given by the learned single Judge. 65. In any event, as the learned District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur is the competent authority to issue appropriate directions, as provided under Clause 30 of the scheme decree relating to the working of the scheme or in regard to the correct interpretation of any provision in the scheme, we are of the considered view that there is no need to refer the dispute to a civil court. As appropriate orders have already been passed by the competent Civil Court nominating the first respondent as trustee-Manager of the charitable trust, who is also the secretary of the educational institutions, established and administered by the trust, the orders made in the writ petitions in W.P.NOs.328 and 329 of 2008, dated 13.02.2008, would run contrary to the scheme framed by the High Court and therefore are set aside. In the light of the above discussion, we find that there is no illegality in the order of the learned District Judge, Virudhunagar, at Srivilliputhur nominating the first respondent as a trustee manager of the trust. As the educational authorities are bound by the scheme decree and the orders by the scheme Court there is no jurisdictional error committed by the District Educational Officer, Virudhunagar in rejecting the proposals. Needless to say that the executive orders have no binding effect when appropriate orders are passed by the competent Civil Court, therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in K. Rama Sasty Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in (AIR 2001 Andhra Pradesh 28) is inapposite to the facts of this case. 66. Needless to say that the executive orders have no binding effect when appropriate orders are passed by the competent Civil Court, therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in K. Rama Sasty Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in (AIR 2001 Andhra Pradesh 28) is inapposite to the facts of this case. 66. Having regard to our findings rendered above and the contentions of the first respondent that the trustee manager has been served with the attachment notice to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/-by the local authority and the urgency to file the income-tax returns for the establishments and for the educational institutions, the revision petitioner is directed to hand over all the records pertaining to the educational institutions and hand over the secretary ship to the first respondent within a week from the date receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the first respondent to send necessary communication to the educational authorities to recognize him as secretary of the school/college committees so as to enable him to receive the staff grant for the teaching and non teaching staff working in the educational institutions and for other administrative functions, under the respective enactments. 67. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the Writ Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.