ORDER All these writ petitions relate to appointments/promotions/ reversions/Transfers/Disciplinary action taken against the teaching staff in schools and colleges functioning under Tiruneveli Diocese, which runs several colleges, schools and hospitals for the benefit of the member of the Tirunelveli Dioceses. The educational institutions are recognised and aided by the Government. Litigation started in the year 2007 for the posts in the administration of Diocese, has spread its wings to educational institutions resulting in filing of number of writ petitions as well as civil suits, in lower Courts. Some writ petitions relate to challenging the Order of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, in the matter of functioning of Secretaries and Correspondents in St. John's College, and Sarah Tucker College, Palayamkottai. Many writ petitions relate to appointments/promotions/reversion/cancellation of appointments in various schools and colleges established and administered by Tiruvenlveli Diocesan Trust Association. Two writ petitions have been filed by TADA employees Welfare Association. 2. As common questions of fact and law are involved, all the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common Order. On the facts of the case, some of the writ petitions are dealt with independently. 3. Appointments to the post of Lecturers in colleges run by the Diocesan Institutions have been made by Secretaries of the respective colleges on 11.8.2008. Appointments/promotions/Orders of re-employment in schools have been made on various dates by Correspondents/Managers of the Schools, when they were holding the said Offices in various schools are made on 1.9.2008. 4. The main issues to be considered are, (1) Whether the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai is right in cancelling the Order, dated 31.7.2008. (2) Whether the Secretaries of the two colleges had the competence to make appointments to the post of Lecturers in the colleges on their own. (3) Whether the appointments made by the then Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai are valid as per the Rules and regulations of the Church and the statutory provisions. (4) Whether the appointments/promotions/Orders of re-employment made by the Correspondents/Managers, in various schools are valid. 5. It is to be noted that all the appointments have been made on the strength of the interim Orders granted by the Civil Court, Chennai and consequent Orders passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai. 6. Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association Church of South India (hereinafter called TADA) is a religious Christian minority. 5. It is to be noted that all the appointments have been made on the strength of the interim Orders granted by the Civil Court, Chennai and consequent Orders passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai. 6. Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association Church of South India (hereinafter called TADA) is a religious Christian minority. It has established and administers five colleges, 11 Higher Secondary Schools and 324 Primary and Middle schools. Besides, it has Industrial Training Schools, Teacher Training Institutions and also administers Old Age Homes, Orphanages, Schools for the Handicapped, Hospitals and other Social Service Centres for the benefit of Protestant Christian community. Church of South India was found in the year 1947 and administered as a company under the Companies Act. The church has its own by-laws and guidelines and the same are binding on the members particularly, those elected and nominated under the Rules to various offices. The Council consists of Bishop, Chairmen of Church Councils, Office Bearers of the Councils, Clergymen, Diocesan Worker Representatives and other elected representatives of Pastorates, through the Congregation and other persons nominated by the Bishop. 7. With regard to education, there is a Standing Committee on education dealing with higher education and other primary and middle education. The Standing Committee consists of the Bishop, Office bearers of the Diocesan Council, Chairman of Church Council and Manager appointed by the Bishop. The Education Standing Committee consists of Principals of the Colleges, one Correspondent among the Boys Secondary Schools and other three Girls Secondary Schools and five members of the Diocesan Executive Committee of whom, three are Headmasters and Headmistress and Assistant Teacher and two other members nominated by the Bishop. 8. As regards the day to day affairs and administration of the Schools, the manager, who is appointed by the Bishop, takes instructions from the Standing Committee and thereafter, instructs the concerned Correspondent of the Schools regarding appointments, transfers and promotions. Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association has been recognised as the educational agency under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is also recognised as the educational agency under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges Regulation Act. 9. With the above administrative background, let me first consider the facts of the case relating to appointment, approval and cancellation of two Secretaries, viz., Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, Secretary of Sara Tucker Collge, Palayamkottai and Mr. It is also recognised as the educational agency under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges Regulation Act. 9. With the above administrative background, let me first consider the facts of the case relating to appointment, approval and cancellation of two Secretaries, viz., Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, Secretary of Sara Tucker Collge, Palayamkottai and Mr. Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, Secretary of St. John's College, Palayamkottai, who have made appointments to various posts in the above said colleges. 10. According to the Writ Petitioner, Mr. Vedanayakam, in W.P. No. 8014 and 8015 of 2009, election to the administrative setup of the Tirunelveli Diocese took place in the year 2007. In this election, there were disputes between victors and vanquished. The vanquished under the head of Mr. A.D.J.C.Thinahar, instituted several judicial proceedings and in none of the proceedings, they got interim Orders. The newly elected Office bearers of TDTA were registered with the Registrar of Companies as per the requirement of the Companies Act. Mr. A.D.J.C.Thinahar and his followers, numbering 58, instituted a suit in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008 on the file of the learned 2nd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a judgment and decree, to declare that they were the duly elected members and filed I.A. No. 6990 and sought for an injunction, restraining the Diocese of Tirunelveli, CSI, its members, subordinates and agents from interfering in any manner with the petitioners/plaintiffs from discharging their duties in the respective posts in the matter of appointment and teachers in schools and colleges run by the second respondent Diocese. By Order dated 30.4.2008, the Civil Court Ordered the parties to maintain status-quo. The Bishop of Diocese of Tirunelveli filed I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 to recall and rescind the Order of status quo, dated 30.4.2008 made in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008. The learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, allowed the petition and by Order, dated 27.8.2008, modified his earlier Order dated 30.4.2008, made in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, whereby, the Court directed the parties therein to maintain status-quo as on 21.12.2007, i.e., the date of the fourth phase of Diocesan election. Aggrieved by the same, the Bishop filed CRP.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By Order, dated 18.8.2008 in CRP. (PD) Nos. Aggrieved by the same, the Bishop filed CRP.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By Order, dated 18.8.2008 in CRP. (PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, the Principal Bench of this Court, set aside the Order, dated 21.7.2008, and further directed that the duly elected Office bearers in the election held on 21.12.2007, as certified by the Bishop in Exhibit R-1, would continue to administer the Diocese. On the basis of the interim Orders, dated 21.7.2008 passed by the Civil Court, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, by Order dated 31.7.2008, Ordered that Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, and Mr. Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, would continue to function as Secretaries of Sara Tucker College and St. John's College, Payalamkottai, respectively till the disposal of the above suit. The said Order is impugned in W.P. No. 8014 of 2008. W.P. No. 8015 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner, Mr. Vedhanayagam, for a direction to consider and pass Orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.8.2008. 11. Subsequently, based the Orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2725 and 2729 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, by his Order, dated 29.8.2008, cancelled the earlier Order, dated 31.7.2008, with further directions that Mr. T.Jebarajan and Mr. Vethanayakam, should function as Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College of Palayamkottai, respectively without prejudice to the outcome of any Court case. Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, petitioner in W.P. No. 10196 of 2008 has challenged the Order of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, dated 29.8.2008, cancelling the approval of his Secretaryship and consequently, prayed for a direction to forbear Mr. Vedhanayakam, petitioner in W.P. No. 8014 of 2008, from interfering in his administration as Secretary in the St. John's College, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. 12. In W.P. Nos. 10653 of 2008, TDTA Employees Welfare Association has sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the School/College educational authorities to issue suitable directions to Private respondents 9 to 14 therein, not to affect the conditions of service of the members of the petitioner's association. John's College, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. 12. In W.P. Nos. 10653 of 2008, TDTA Employees Welfare Association has sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the School/College educational authorities to issue suitable directions to Private respondents 9 to 14 therein, not to affect the conditions of service of the members of the petitioner's association. In W.P. No. 726 of 2009, the said Association has also sought for a Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the notification of the Bishop, Tirunelveli Diocese, published in Dinakaran Newspaper, dated 19.1.2008 and consequently, sought for a direction to forbear the respondents 9 to 11 therein from filling up the teaching and non-teaching posts in the educational institutions. 13. W.P. Nos. 8012, 8017 and 8131 of 2008 are filed by the teachers working in different schools for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli to approve their appointments in their posts with effect from 12.8.2008. In W.P. No. 8131, the petitioner has also sought for a consequential prayer to forbear the private respondents therein from in any way interfering with the appointment. 14. In W.P. Nos. 7866, 7938, 8051, 8052, 8121 and 8132 of 2008, the petitioners have sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the Order of the Correspondents of the respective schools, dated 1.9.2008, by which, their appointments/promotions have been held as illegal and consequently, prayed for a direction to the educational authorities to approve their appointments. 15. In W.P. No. 2503, 2589 to 2591 and 3205 of 2009, the petitioners have sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the Order of the Manager, TDTA Primary and Middle Schools, dated 24.3.2009, reverting the petitioners to lower posts in primary/middle schools and sought for a further direction to approve their appointments in the promotional posts with effect from 11.8.2008. 16. In W.P. Nos. 10618, 10675 to 10680, 10698 to 10701, 10724, 10725, 10732 to 10738, 10859 and 10914, the petitioners - teaching staff of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, have sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Orders, dated 17.11.2008 by which, the Secretaries and Correspondents of the above said Colleges, have held that their appointments to teaching posts as illegal and consequently, sought for a direction to the educational authorities to approve their appointments from the date of their initial appointment. 17. In W.P. Nos. 17. In W.P. Nos. 10131 to 10133 of 2008, the post of the Lecturers in Mathematics in Sarah Tucker College/St. John's College, Palayamkottai were filled up on regular basis by the Secretary of the above said colleges, by Order dated 11.8.2008. The appointment of Lecturers to the above said posts is challenged in the above writ petitions. 18. Mr. G.Jebarajan and Mr. D.Vethanayakam, Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai respectively have filed separate counter affidavits in respect of writ petitions challenging the impugned Orders, dated 17.11.2008, by which, the appointments of the lecturers were held to be illegal. The averments made in the counter affidavits are common. In the counter affidavits, they have explained the Constitution of the Diocese, Office bearers, functions of the respective Committees in the matter of administration of the educational institutions and other bodies. 19. Denying the allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the Secretaries have further submitted the following facts: (a) O.S. No. 194 of 2007 was filed before the Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, Mr MN Johnson under Order 1 Rule 8 for declaration to declare the Pastorate Committees, Church Councils of the Diocese elected on 7.10.2007, 12.10.2007, 22.10.2007 is null and void. The suit is pending and the Orders in IA become final by Order CRP MD No. 1784 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007 and contempt petition 13 of 2008. (b) O.S. No. 128 of 2007 was filed by one Edison under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC before the Additional Munsif Court, Nanguneri seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Diocese from filling up teaching and non-teaching staff in the institutions pending the Diocesan Elections. There are no interim Orders against the elected Diocesan Committees, Councils and the same also legal as per Orders in CRP 921 of 2008. (c) O.S. No. 341 of 2007 was filed by one RKP Jeyakumar and N Samuel before the Hon'ble District Minsif Court, Vallioor seeking to declare the elections held to the Church Council on 4.12.2007 is null and void. And the same has been stayed in 22.4.2008 CMA of 2 of 2008 and is pending. (c) O.S. No. 341 of 2007 was filed by one RKP Jeyakumar and N Samuel before the Hon'ble District Minsif Court, Vallioor seeking to declare the elections held to the Church Council on 4.12.2007 is null and void. And the same has been stayed in 22.4.2008 CMA of 2 of 2008 and is pending. (d) O.S. 7704 of 2007 filed by one Masilamani Azariah under Order 1 Rule 8 before the Hon'ble VIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, O.S.7697 of 2007 was filed by one Jacob Jeyaseelan, John Chelliah was filed before the 2nd Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai seeking to declare the election held on 2007 is null and void, but the I.A's for injunction restraining further conduct of elections to the Sub-ordinate bodies were dismissed. O.S. 2898 of 2008 was filed by one Isaac Vetri Selvan and 57 others before the 2nd Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai seeking the Injunction against the Diocese from disturbing them as they had been elected in the election conducted on 4.12.2007 a December 21, 2007. The said plea and the interim Orders thereto have been set aside by the Hon Isle High Court of Madras by its Order dated 18.8.2008, in CRP 2527 in Order 2528, 2529, 2601, 2602 of 2008. The Hon'ble High Court had specifically found the ex-officials whose term had expired had committed fraud on the Court to continue in office. Further, O.S. No. 9 of 2008 Hon' ble District Munsif Court, Vallioor, O.S. No. 927 of 2007, Hon'ble Munsif Court, Tenkasi, O.S. No. 650 of 2007. The Hon'ble Division District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli OS.351 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Court, Tirunelveli O.S. No. 88 of 2008 before the Hon'ble District Judge, Tirunelveli O.S. No. 160 of 2007, Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Vallioor O.S.62 of 2008 before the Hon'ble District Judge, Tirunelveli OS.219 of 2008 before the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri have all been filed by certain members of the Diocese against the Diocesan Councils and Education Committees etc. by seeking declaration that the elections dated 4.12.2007 and thereafter are null and void and seeking to injunct the education council and the Manager and Secretaries of the Colleges appointed by the Bishop and the Bishop from making appointments, transfers, promotions, etc., There are no interim Orders in any of the above cases against any of the newly duly elected council members, educational committee and its other authorities." 20. It is further submitted that elections to the Church and its administrative bodies were completed on 21.12.2007 and the elected members took charge of the respective offices on 21.12.2007. It is further submitted that all the actions done by the persons, who held the office illegally are actuated by fraud, misrepresentation and not in accordance with law or with that of the Diocese, the educational agency or statutory provisions or sanctioned by Court. Acts done by the said Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and pursuant to the interim Orders of Court are therefore illegal, null or void and without jurisdiction. 21. It is further submitted that the Government in their letter dated 11.7.2008 had permitted the educational agency and its lawful educational board to function in office. The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, however passed an Order dated 31.7.2008 on the representation of Mr. ADJC Thinahar, permitting him and Mr. Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar to function as Secretaries of the Colleges on the basis of the interim Orders of the City Civil Court made in I.A. 6990 of 2008 in O.S. 2898 of 2008 dated 21.7.2008. Subsequently, the very same Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai set aside the above Order dated 31.7.2008 by another Order, dated 29.8.2008 on the basis of the Order made in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 etc., dated 18.8.2008. 22. The Secretaries have further submitted that when the writ petitioners of lecturers, who are members of the Church, have claimed that their appointments have been made by the then Secretaries of the respective colleges, on 11.8.2008, even though the Order passed in CRP 2527 of 2008 etc. was enclosed along with the impugned Orders, dated 17.11.2008, they have deliberately failed to mention about the said Order in their affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and chosen to pretend ignorance. 23. It is further submitted that writ petitioners have not chosen to implead the Education Agency, i.e. the Church of South India, Diocese of Tirunelveli represented by its Bishop as a party, who would be directly affected. They have also not chosen to implead the concerned appointing authorities which would clearly show the mala fide and purposeful magnitude of fraud, now attempted to be played on this Court. It is submitted that the all the writ petitioners-lecturers and Mr. ADJC. They have also not chosen to implead the concerned appointing authorities which would clearly show the mala fide and purposeful magnitude of fraud, now attempted to be played on this Court. It is submitted that the all the writ petitioners-lecturers and Mr. ADJC. Thinahar have colluded in acting together to cheat the Diocese, the Educational Agency and the education department. Non impleading of the educational agency of the college and other necessary parties is fatal and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on that score alone. 24. It is further submitted that the appointments are made in the educational institutions from the list of candidates, who had enrolled themselves seeking appointment and by the Diocesan Sub Committee. The candidates so enrolled or submitted their applications in response to any notification would be intimated by personal letter/Telegram of the dates of interview by the selection Committee constituted by the Educational Agency in accordance with the Tamilnadu Private College Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the University Grants Commission, as applicable to the Minority Institutions. The statutory Appointment selection Committee as per the resolution No 12 of the Standing Committee's decision made on 24.4.2008 consists of the following members: (i) The Rt Rev Bishop (ii) Vice Chairman (iii) Clerical Secretary (iv) Lay secretary (v) Diocesan Treasurer (vi) Correspondent of TDTA Colleges and B.ED College (vii) Principals of TDTA Colleges and B.ED College (viii) Secretary Standing Committee on Higher Education (ix) Manager TDTA High / Higher Secondary / Special Schools / TTI's - who will act as the convener. The said resolution has come into effect from 26.4.2008 the date it was authenticated and approved by the Bishop. 25. It is further submitted that after scrutiny of the educational qualifications by the Certificate Committee constituted under the Church Rules, the list would be once again placed before the Appointment Committees, who after careful consideration of the interview report and certificate verification committee, recommend the names of the chosen candidates and thereafter, the selected candidates would be appointed by the Secretary of the concerned college, which has to be countersigned by the Rt Rev Bishop, who performs the function of the Manager of the TDTA Colleges. No appointment Order is valid without the approval of the Bishop/ Manager. The writ petitioners who claim to be members of the Church have deliberately suppressed the selection procedure in their affidavits. 26. No appointment Order is valid without the approval of the Bishop/ Manager. The writ petitioners who claim to be members of the Church have deliberately suppressed the selection procedure in their affidavits. 26. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners have also suppressed that the Educational Agency had called for an interview of candidate on 4.8.2007 from the Employment Waiting List, when Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, was the then Secretary of the College until 29.10.2007. He sent telegrams postponing the interview only to defeat the employment list, legitimate rights of the candidates for personal benefits on 12.8.2007 and to appoint his own persons, without following the Rules of the church and the Education Department. No interview was called thereafter by him till the elections were over. Several persons who were enrolled themselves in the Diocesan list for employment had appealed to the Diocesan Governing Board and all of them are pending. However, those persons have been now given an opportunity to attend the regular selection process which commenced on 4.12.2008. 27. The Writ Petitioners have also chosen to suppress the news paper notification issued by the Diocese Educational Agency dated 9.8.2008 a 10.8.2008 calling for applications and that they have also failed to apply thereto. The last date for receipt of applications was 31.8.2008. This fact has also been suppressed by the writ petitioners only because they have colluded with the then Secretary Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and with the common intention and in togetherness to cheat the Diocese Educational Agency, the government and education Department, hurriedly got appointment Orders on the same day i.e. on 11.8.2008 before the cut of date i.e. 31.8.2008 as notified. The writ petitioners in collusion with the said ADJC Thinahar have usurped to the posts clandestinely. 28. The Secretaries have further submitted that the writ petitioners have also suppressed the fact that they are members of the Association of Teachers and closely associated to Mr. Ernest Balasingh who had filed O.S. No. 62 of 2008 before the District Court of Tirunelveli against the Diocese, the Bishop and his authorities. As such the writ petitioners, who are members of the Church cannot plead any ignorance of the fact that Mr. ADJC. Thinahar was not presently the Secretary of the College. The list of 30 candidates appointed by Mr. ADJC. As such the writ petitioners, who are members of the Church cannot plead any ignorance of the fact that Mr. ADJC. Thinahar was not presently the Secretary of the College. The list of 30 candidates appointed by Mr. ADJC. Thinahar on 11.8.2008 and alleged to have joined the Colleges on the same day are blood relations to the parties, who have filed cases against the Church, the Diocese, the Bishop and against the various administrative Boards and the details are given below: (1) A. Felcy Navajothi, Physics - St John's College, is the Daughter-in-law of Mr John Stephen, who is also the plaintiff in O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri and also party to O.S.2829 of 2008 Hon'ble City Civil Court, Chennai. (2) Mr D. Immanuel Prabin, Economics - St John's College, is the nephew of Mr John Muthiah who is the paternal uncle, who had filed O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. (3) P. Alice Benita, Chemistry, St John's College, is the Sister of the Son-in-law of Rev MGR Sugumar, who had also instituted suit in O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri and party to O.S.2829 of 2008 of City Civil Court, Chennai. (4) S. Wilson, Botany - St John's College, is the son-in-law of one Mr Eben Samuel Maduram is one among the plaintiff in O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri challenging the authority of the Diocese. (5) P. Pushpabai, Botany, St John's College is the daughter-in-law of Mr Nesadurai who is also a plaintiff in O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. (6) J. Rani Navolina Juliet, Mathematics, St John's College is the wife of Mr Ravi Rajamani who is also a plaintiff in O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. (7) J. Wilfred Jebaraj, Chemistry, St John's College, is the brother-in-law of Mr ADJC Thinahar and related to Mr Jebakumar who is the counsel in O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. (8) Christina Jebakumari, Mathematics, Sarah Tcker College, is the daughter-in-law of Mr Wilson who is also a plaintiff O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. (9) G Angelin Mary, Tamil, St John's College, is the daughter-in-law of Mr. (8) Christina Jebakumari, Mathematics, Sarah Tcker College, is the daughter-in-law of Mr Wilson who is also a plaintiff O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. (9) G Angelin Mary, Tamil, St John's College, is the daughter-in-law of Mr. Ernest Balasingh who had filed O.S 62 of 2008 before the Hon'ble District Court, Tirunelveli and also related to Mr. ADJC.Thinahar. (10) S. Wilson, Botany - St John's College, is the son-in-law of one Mr Eben Samuel Maduram is one among the plaintiff in O.S. 194 of 2007 before Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri challenging the authority of the Diocese. (11) S. Sophia Christina, English - St John's College, is the daughter-in-law of Mrs Usha who had also filed O.S. 194 of 2007 before Honble District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. Thus it would be manifest clear that those with vested interests have instituted suits and writ petitioners have colluded with them, by getting illegal appointments fraudulently to defeat the lawful right of other candidates waiting in the employment list. 29. It is further submitted that the action of the Writ Petitioners along with that of Mr. ADJC. Thinahar in preferring the present writ petitions to defeat the legitimate rights and circumvent the queue of other qualified persons in the employment list and the legal selection process made by the lawful selection committee is purely a fraudulent and mala fide exercise. The writ petitioners, who are beneficiaries of fraud committed by Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, cannot seek for such continuation of fraudulent appointment. The writ petitioners who are members of the Church have suppressed the notification, dated 8.8.2008 issued by the Rt Rev Bishop as Manager of the Colleges about the pendency of CRP 2898 of 2008 etc. and that no appointments should be made by any person, without the concurrence of the Bishop. This amply proves that the appointments were secured by the writ petitioners by collusion with Mr. ADJC.Thinahar. All 30 appointments have been made on 11.8.2008 without any public notification, interview by the selection committee as required under the Tamilnadu Recognised Private College (Regulation) Act, Rules framed thereunder and the University Grants Commission to defeat the rights of all candidates who had applied for selection as per the notification and anticipating appointments as per the statutory Rules and regulations of the educational agency. 30. 30. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners have suppressed that prior to the issuance of the Order of discharge of their probation dated 17.11.2008 they were sent with a notices, dated 15.11.2008 calling upon them to produce their certificates for verification, to which they sent replies by telegrams. There being no approval of their illegal appointment by the educational department and since the employment is purely contractual, they cannot be permitted to maintain the writ petitions under Act 226 of the Constitution of India, without exhausting the appellate remedy. 31. It is further submitted that the individual interest of the Writ Petitioners accentuated by fraud cannot out weigh the collective social interest of the community at large and particularly of those who had applied pursuant to the notification, whereby the last date for submission of application was 30.8.2008. The right to choose the best candidates in accordance with the Rules of selection by the Educational agency, which is a Christian religious minority is protected under Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be permitted to be defeated by the individuals whose actions are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and flowing out of fraud practiced on Courts and the education department. 32. It is also submitted that the Writ Petitioners cannot compel this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the educational agency to retain the services of those who had obtained appointments out of fraudulent practice. The Writ Petitioners cannot compel the church, the educational agency, college and the Education Department to retain the beneficiaries of a mass fraud and grant approval of their appointments and claim salary over the same. The illegal fraudulent appointment Order dated 11.8.2008 cannot be permitted to continued or be kept alive and the impugned Orders dated 17.11.2008 passed by the competent authority, stating the events of this Court and the Department is only innocuous in nature and hence the Orders of discharge of the services of the petitioners are perfectly valid and legal. 33. Assailing the Order of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, impugned in W.P. No. 10196 of 2008 and the Orders challenged in other writ petitions filed by the Teachers/Lecturers, Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Executive Committee by its resolution, dated 29.10.2007, appointed Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar as Correspondent/Secretary of the St. 33. Assailing the Order of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, impugned in W.P. No. 10196 of 2008 and the Orders challenged in other writ petitions filed by the Teachers/Lecturers, Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Executive Committee by its resolution, dated 29.10.2007, appointed Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar as Correspondent/Secretary of the St. John's College, for the period from 29.10.2007 to 31.5.2008. In the meanwhile, election process was commenced. The first phase of the election was held on 7.10.2007. After the election process was set in motion, they were two factions, one headed by Mr. D.Vedhanayakam, fifth respondent in the above Writ Petition, and another faction headed by Mr. ADJC. Thinahar. During the election process, some persons, who were aggrieved by the improper election filed suit in O.S. No. 347 of 2009, and prayed for an Order of interim injunction from conducting the election, without following the mandatory provisions or the bye-laws of the Church of South India. The Civil Court granted an Order of status quo on 6.1.2008. Initially, the term of Office of the petitioner was due to expire on 31.5.2008. Four days prior to the expiry of Office, the executive committee once again convened a meeting on 26.5.2008 and the committee unanimously resolved to continue his appointment as Secretary. During the pendency of the above proceedings in Valliyoor, another suit came to be filed before the City Civil Court at Chennai. The initial appointment of the petitioner as Secretary of the St. John's College, was duly approved by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, by his proceedings, dated 26.11.2007. He also passed an Order, dated 31.7.2008 approving the petitioner's appointment as Secretary, pending disposal of the Civil Suit, before the City Civil Court at Chennai. On the basis of the Orders passed in the Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 etc., dated 18.8.2008, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, second respondent, ought not to have cancelled the Order of approval by the impugned proceedings, dated 29.8.2008 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, it is violative of principles of natural justice. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by proceedings dated 26.11.2007, the Secretaryship was approved by the Directorate. The fifth respondent, viz., Mr. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by proceedings dated 26.11.2007, the Secretaryship was approved by the Directorate. The fifth respondent, viz., Mr. D. Vedhanayakam, has not questioned the initial appointment of the petitioner as Secretary and therefore, it is not open to him to question the Order of approval, dated 31.7.2008, passed by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai in W.P. No. 8014 of 2008. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the provisions of the Bye-laws, only the executive committee has to make appointment to the post of Secretary. The Bishop has no power or authority to appoint any person to the post of Secretary. Even as per the Order of appointment of the fifth respondent, Mr. D.Vethanayakam, the Bishop has made the Order of appointment and there is no reference to the Executive Committee's decision. Therefore, without ascertaining the authenticity and jurisdiction of the persons, making the appointment to the post of Secretary of the College, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, has erroneously accepted the request of the fifth respondent, viz., Mr. Vedhanayakam, dated 22.8.2008 and passed the impugned Order of cancelling the earlier Order of approval, dated 31.7.2008, with a direction that Mr. Jebarajan and Mr. D.Vethanayakam, would function as Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai respectively. 36. Referring to the impugned Order, dated 29.8.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that taking advantage of the observations made by the second respondent, viz., the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, in the impugned Order, the fifth respondent, Mr. D.Vethanayakam, is disturbing the entire administration, appointments and promotions made during his tenure as Secretary of the Colleges. 37. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar as the Secretary and the Governing council of the college have already made appointments to the existing vacancies and the competent authority, viz., Manonmaniam Sundaram University has also approved the educational qualifications of the appointees. As the appointments of the Lecturers were made during the subsistence of approval, the same cannot be said to be illegal. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an unreported decision of this Court in W.A. No. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008. 38. Referring to the directions of this Court in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. As the appointments of the Lecturers were made during the subsistence of approval, the same cannot be said to be illegal. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an unreported decision of this Court in W.A. No. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008. 38. Referring to the directions of this Court in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2009, dated 18.8.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while disposing of the Civil Revision Petitions, this Court having regard to the interest of the educational institutions and the students, only directed the elected officers to continue as per Exhibit R-1 document filed by the Bishop and the observations cannot be taken advantage by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, to pass an Order in favour of the fifth respondent. He also submitted that the decision made in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 etc., dated 18.8.2008, is under challenge before the Supreme Court. As the civil Courts have seized of the matter relating to the conduct of the elections of the representatives to the administrative set up, it is not proper on the part of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai to cancel the Order of approval of secretaryship. 39. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the appointments to the teaching staff in colleges were made on 11.8.2008, well before the date of passing of the Order in CRP.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008 and before the cancellation of the approval by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, in the impugned proceedings, 29.8.2008 and therefore, the same cannot be nullified or said to be illegal. Inasmuch as the Secretaries of the respective colleges were functioning in the said capacity from 31.7.1998 to 29.8.2008, the appointing authority of teaching staff in the colleges, cannot be questioned. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that before the changing the Secretary, the educational agency has to send a proposal for effecting a change and only in such circumstances, the change of Secretaryship can be made by the Director of Collegiate Education. 41. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while disposing of the Civil Revision Petition Nos. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that before the changing the Secretary, the educational agency has to send a proposal for effecting a change and only in such circumstances, the change of Secretaryship can be made by the Director of Collegiate Education. 41. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while disposing of the Civil Revision Petition Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, this Court, having regard to the fact that the Diocese of Tirunelveli is running various schools, colleges and hospitals and taking into consideration that the functioning of the public institutions should not suffer and Ordered that the same must be administered without any inconvenience to the students, parents and other staffs of the public. 42. Referring to Paragraphs 47 and 49 of the Orders made in the Civil Revision Petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Principal Bench of this Court did not pass any specific directions nullifying the action taken by the Secretaries of the colleges, but the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai has misquoted the said Order by erroneously cancelling the approval of the secretaries. 43. Referring to the Orders of termination, dated 17.11.2008, issued to the teaching staff of Sarah Tucker College as well as St. John's College, Palayamkottai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasons stated therein that the High Court in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2725 and 2729 of 2008 etc., dated 18.8.2008, has nullified all actions taken by Mr. ADCJ. Thinahar, is erroneous and that there is no specific finding in that regard. He further submitted that this Court only directed that the Original Suits to be disposed of and there is no positive direction to disturb or nullify the appointments made by Mr. ADCJ.Thinahar and Mr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar. 44. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that before the District Munsif, Valliyoor, in I.A. No. 1649 of 2007, in O.S. No. 341 of 2007 filed by Thiru. R.K.P. Jayakumar and Another, the Diocese of Thirunelveli, (CSI), rep. by his Bishop and two others, during the course of hearing, on 19.12.2007, the respondents therein sought for an adjournment in Order to file a report to the effect, that the election had been adjourned and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 3.1.2008. But on 3.1.2008, the respondents represented that the fourth phase of elections were over on 21.12.2007 itself. by his Bishop and two others, during the course of hearing, on 19.12.2007, the respondents therein sought for an adjournment in Order to file a report to the effect, that the election had been adjourned and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 3.1.2008. But on 3.1.2008, the respondents represented that the fourth phase of elections were over on 21.12.2007 itself. The learned District Munsif, Valliyoor, by his Order dated 4.1.2008, directed status quo to be maintained as on 17.12.2007. Therefore, he submitted that the election of Diocesan of Council of Thirunelveli, was subjudice. 45. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by virtue of the Orders of status quo dated 21.7.2008, passed in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, dated 21.7.2008, Ordering, status quo ante from 21.12.2007, the appointments/promotions/ Order of re-employment made to various teaching posts in colleges/schools, cannot be said to be illegal. 46. Referring to the impugned Orders of termination/discharge, dated 17.11.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the qualifications are approved by the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and in the absence of any resolution being passed by the Governing council or reference to the same, the impugned Order of termination is contrary to the Full bench judgment of this Court, which states that only the Committee or in the case on hand, the Governing Council alone is competent to remove or terminate the lecturers from the colleges. 47. W.P. Nos. 8051, 8052, 8131 and 8132 of 2008 relate to teaching staff in schools run by TDTA. In W.P. No. 8132 of 2008, it is the case of the petitioner therein, that he was appointed as Librarian in Schaffter Higher Secondary School on 9.6.1998. The Manager, TDTA Primary/Middle Schools, Tirunelveli Diocese, by Order dated 11.8.2008, promoted him as P.G. Assistant (Economics) in a sanctioned post at Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai. Proposals were sent to the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalakadu Range, second respondent therein. Though the petitioner joined duty on 12.8.2008, a group of persons forcibly entered the school premises on 25.8.2008, and forced the Headmaster of the School to relieve the petitioner. They also threatened him with dire consequences. Citing the Orders made in C.R.P.(PD) No. 2725 to 2729 of 2008, the Correspondent of Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai and by observing that the promotion made by Mr. They also threatened him with dire consequences. Citing the Orders made in C.R.P.(PD) No. 2725 to 2729 of 2008, the Correspondent of Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai and by observing that the promotion made by Mr. Daniel Sigamani Simeon, as Manager of TDTA Higher Secondary School as illegal, by Order dated 1.9.2008, directed the petitioner not to enter the school premises. 48. The said Order is assailed on the ground that the fourth respondent therein has no power or authority to cancel the appointment of the petitioner made by the previous management in view of the pendency of the disputes between them. According to the learned counsel, the appointment being made by a competent authority after satisfying with the educational qualification for the post, cannot be cancelled without giving an opportunity and a resolution by the governing body. 49. W.P. No. 8131 of 2008 filed is for a Mandamus directing the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant (English) at St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai and consequently, to forbear the third respondent from interfering with his appointment. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Management Staff in St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, during the year 1997, and rendered 11 years of service in the School. He made a request to the third respondent to consider his case for promotion and accordingly, by Order dated 12.8.2008, the management appointed him as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant English in the said School in a retirement vacancy. It is further case of the petitioner that he was prevented from discharging his duties by group of people on 25.8.2008. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is similar to the one advanced by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 8132 of 2008. 50. In W.P. No. 8051 of 2008, the petitioner was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur. After serving in various places, lastly he was posted as Phyical Education Teacher in D.S. Training School, Palayamkottai. He has completed 11 years of service. According to him, he is the senior most physical education teacher and his name has already been included in the panel prepared by Correspondent, Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, third respondent therein for promotion as Physical Director. He has completed 11 years of service. According to him, he is the senior most physical education teacher and his name has already been included in the panel prepared by Correspondent, Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, third respondent therein for promotion as Physical Director. While he was working as Physical Education Teacher in Palayamkottai Training School, he was promoted as Physical Director on 1.6.2008 in the said School. By impugned Order, dated 1.9.2008, Correspondent, Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, by observing that the promotion of the petitioner as Physical Director by Mr. Daniel Sigamani Simeon, Manager of TDTA Higher Secondary School as illegal, the petitioner has been directed not to enter the school premises. 51. W.P. No. 10653 of 2008 is filed by TDTA Employees Welfare Association, rep by its Secretary for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 8 to issue suitable directions to respondents 9 to 14 not to affect the service conditions of the members of the petitioner's association, pending adjudication of appointment of respondents 11 to 14 as Office Bearers of the ninth respondent, viz., Tirunelveli Diocese Association Company. 52. W.P. No. 726 of 2009, is filed by the same Association to quash the impugned notification of the tenth respondent, Bishop of Tirunelveli Dioceses cum Manager and General Secretary, TDTA colleges, Tirunvelveli, dated 19.1.2009, published in DINAKARAN Newspapaer and quash the same and consequently, to forbear the respondents 9 to 11 therein for any other person on their behalf, from filling up of the teaching and non-teaching posts in the Office of respondents 9 to 11 therein. 53. It is the case of the petitioner's association that it consists of teaching and non-teaching staff appointed in the educational institutions under the Diocese. According to the petitioner, TDTA is a company registered under the Companies Act. As per the memorandum of Articles of Association, the Committee of Management is the appropriate authority for taking all decisions and one of the important objects of the company is to acquire lands and buildings, and to enlarge, maintain several charitable institutions like schools, colleges, hospitals, etc. Election for Diocese is conducted in every four years and it is conducted in four phases. The election commenced on 7.10.2007. During the Church Council election, there was dispute and a civil suit in O.S. No. 194 of 2007 was filed in the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. Election for Diocese is conducted in every four years and it is conducted in four phases. The election commenced on 7.10.2007. During the Church Council election, there was dispute and a civil suit in O.S. No. 194 of 2007 was filed in the District Munsif Court, Nanguneri. Challenging the election of the Pastorates, which was held prior to the Church council election, several suits were filed. There are two factions, one headed by previous Lay Secretary, Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and by Mr. Vedhanayakam. Both factions claimed that they had conducted elections and proclaimed themselves as elected office bearers. In one of the suits before the Civil Court at Chennai, there was an interim Order in favour of Mr. ADJC. Thinahar faction and after that, appointments, promotions and transfers were made. By Order, dated 18.8.2008, the interim Order granted by the City Civil Court, Chennai was vacated. Taking advantage of the observations of this Court in the Order made in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2725 and 2729 of 2008 to continue the administration with the office bearers in the respective posts, as per document, Exhibit R-1, dated 21.12.2007, appointment/promotion of several teachers have been cancelled, reversions etc., were made, by persons appointed or nominated by the Bishop. Though the Bishop of Tirunelveli Diocese cum Manager and General Secretary of TDTA colleges, the Governing council of the respective colleges and Others in Office, have given undertakings before this Court, not to infringe the service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff in various schools and colleges administered by the Diocese, the private respondents have acted detrimental to the interests of the members of the petitioner's Association. They also resorted to illegal termination of the appointments made by the then Officers-in-charge of Schools/Colleges. It is also the case of the petitioner's association that several vacancies of teaching and non-teaching staff in the Schools/Colleges are sought to be filled up, by overlooking the genuine claims of the petitioner's association. The Bishop of Tirunelveli Diocese has also issued a notification, dated 19.1.2008 in 'DINAKARAN' Newspaper, to fill up the post of Principal in St. John's College, Palayamkottai. The Bishop of Tirunelveli Diocese has also issued a notification, dated 19.1.2008 in 'DINAKARAN' Newspaper, to fill up the post of Principal in St. John's College, Palayamkottai. As the action of those at the helm of affairs of the educational institutions is contrary to Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder and also Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the Association has come up with the above writ petitions for the relief as stated supra. 54. Mr. Ajmal Khan, learned appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8012, 8017, 8284 and 8285 of 2008, submitted that earlier, the petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 8012 and 8017 of 2008 for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve their appointments as teachers in the schools with effect from 12.8.2008. But during the pendency of the above writ petitions, by impugned Order, dated 1.9.2008, the Correspondent of TDTA High, Higher Secondary, Special Schools, Diocesan Officer, Palayamkottai has prevented the petitioners from entering into the School campus on the ground that the appointments made by Mr. D.David Paulraj and Mr. A.Daniel Sigamani Simeon as Correspondents were illegal and that the petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of such appointment. 55. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on the date of appointment, the above said persons were competent to make appointments and therefore, the same cannot be nullified, due to the inter se dispute between the rival groups in the Diocese. In support of his contention, he relied on a Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008. 56. Referring to Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1955, he submitted that no act or proceedings of a registered society or any committee or of any officer of the society shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground, (a) of any vacancy or defect in the organisation of the society or the formation of the general body or the constitution of the committee; (b) of any defect or irregularity in the election or appointment of a member of the committee or an officer of the society; or (c) of any defect or irregularity in such act or proceeding not affecting the merits of the case. He also submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are not qualified for the posts. 57. In W.P. No. 7866 and 7938 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the Orders dated 25.8.2008 a 28.8.2008 respectively passed by the first respondent. By Order, dated 25.8.2008, the Manager, TDTA High School and Teacher Training Institute, Tirunelveli Diocese has directed the petitioner to hand over the charges of St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai to another person on the ground that his application for extension of service has not been recommended by an authorised Correspondent. In W.P. No. 7938 of 2008, by Order dated 28.8.2008, the first respondent has suspended the petitioner from service. 58. Assailing the impugned Orders, Mr. M.Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner had completed 58 years of service as on 5.7.2008 in the middle of the academic year 2008-09. Proceedings were initiated and the Correspondent of the School forwarded his application for extension of service with recommendations to the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, third respondent to approve the continuation of his services till the end of the academic year. When the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, by his proceedings, dated 1.8.2008, had already approved the extension till the end of the academic year, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to contend that the recommendation as invalid. He further submitted that by Order, dated 28.8.2008, this Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2008, in W.P. No. 7866 of 2008 has granted an interim direction to the respondents 1 and 2 therein, to permit the petitioner to continue as Headmaster of St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, till 31.5.2009, based on the Order of approval of his re-employment issued by the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. The said fact has also been communicated to the respondents 1 and 2 therein, through Telegram dated 28.8.2008 itself. While that be so, in Order to circumvent the same, the first respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension from the Forenoon on 28.8.2008, alleging grave charges of misconduct, irregularity and misappropriation of funds. 59. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there were no charges pending against the petitioner till the date of his retirement, i.e. 5.7.2008, and only after satisfying the good record of service, extension was granted by the management and approved by the educational authority. 59. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there were no charges pending against the petitioner till the date of his retirement, i.e. 5.7.2008, and only after satisfying the good record of service, extension was granted by the management and approved by the educational authority. Therefore, the Order of suspension in contemplation of grave charges of misappropriation of funds, before the expiry of the extended period of service, i.e., re-employment, is nothing but mala fide and only due to the dispute between the two warring groups in the CSI Diocese. 60. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner is on re-employment, as per the Orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 249, 452, 2529 and 1643, the school authorities have no jurisdiction to suspend a teacher during the period of re-employment. 61. Based on the counter affidavits filed in both the writ petitions, Mr. S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that during the period as Headmaster, the petitioner has committed several financial irregularities in dealing with the funds of the institution. Since he was closely associated with the previous management, no action was taken against him. After the assumption of Office, the new Correspondent found several irregularities in the financial administration and therefore, disciplinary action was contemplated against him. He further submitted that in Order to avail the benefit of re-employment, the petitioner has to satisfy that his character and conduct are good and that his past activities in the institution are also beneficial and not detrimental to the interests of the school and the students. 62. Referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner had collected huge amounts from students against law and that he has also not maintained proper accounts. Besides, there was wide paper publication condemning about the collection of donation from the students. According to the learned senior counsel, the first respondent alone is the competent authority to appoint/transfer/retire the Headmaster and forward the proposals for re-employment to the educational authorities, provided he satisfies the norms prescribed in the Government Orders. According to the learned counsel, the person who recommended the re-employment of the petitioner was a usurper to the Office and therefore, the very recommendation itself was illegal. According to the learned counsel, the person who recommended the re-employment of the petitioner was a usurper to the Office and therefore, the very recommendation itself was illegal. His Correspondent ship came to an end on 30.5.2008 itself and therefore, the said individual has no legal authority to recommend for re-employment. 63. Learned senior counsel for the second respondent further submitted that when the embezzlement of several lakhs of rupees came to light, the management felt that it is not desirable to permit the petitioner to continue in service, as he would tamper with the records and also compel his subordinates to help him in the process. He also added that retention of the petitioner would lead to mal-administration in the educational institution. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the management suspended the petitioner from service, pending enquiry. 64. Learned senior counsel for the second respondent further submitted that when the master and servant relationship is subsisting, during the period of re-employment, there is no impediment in suspending the petitioner. According to him, the interim Order of status quo passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, has no relevance to the facts of this case. For the above said reasons, he prayed to sustain the Orders passed by the second respondent. 65. The constitution of the Governing Board of Tirunelveli Diocese empowers the Corespondent to suspend or remove any member of the staff (teaching and non-teaching) and of Boarding/Hostel excluding the Headmaster, whose case would be dealt with by the Manager in consultation with the Corespondent concerned. For the financial irregularities noticed, the first respondent has issued a letter, dated 2.12.2007, seeking for an explanation from the petitioner. In response to the same, the petitioner has also submitted a reply, dated 24.12.2008. One of the allegations noticed by the management relates to construction of Chemistry Lab building for the school under the Member of the Parliament Scheme (MPLAD) awarded to Mr. Ramesh, PWD Contractor, by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Tirunelveli. But the work is said to have been done by M/s.Sharon Constructions owned by Mr. Gabriel Jesudasan, son in law of the petitioner who was the then Headmaster of the School. All payments and advances are alleged to have been made to Mr. Gabriel Jesudasan, who had no basic knowledge of approval plan, sanction estimate, measurement of portion of work completed etc. Gabriel Jesudasan, son in law of the petitioner who was the then Headmaster of the School. All payments and advances are alleged to have been made to Mr. Gabriel Jesudasan, who had no basic knowledge of approval plan, sanction estimate, measurement of portion of work completed etc. The expenses incurred for construction of Chemistry Lab building has been given to his son-in-law, Mr. Gabriel Jesudasan, at the cost of the School funds. Perusal of the letter, dated 9.1.2009 of the Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Construction Division, Palayamkottai, addressed to the Correspondent, St. John's Higher Secondary School, shows that the work has been done by PWD, as a deposit work from the Collector and therefore, there is no question of PWD getting payment from the School. It is also evident from the letter, dated 29.1.2009, of the Headmaster, St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai that a sum of Rs. 25,90,494/- has been given to Mr. Gabriel Jesudasan, son-in-law of the petitioner from school funds. The Governing Board of the St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, in its meeting held on 15.9.2008, has also decided to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for certain financial irregularities. 66. It is evident from the material on record, that consequent to the change in Correspondentship, the financial irregularities noticed by the Management were sought to be enquired into and that the petitioner has also offered his explanation. Though the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, has passed an Order of extension of service based on the recommendations of the previous corespondent of the school, yet as long as the relationship of master and servant is subsisting between the first respondent and the petitioner, the management has every right to take disciplinary action and invoke suspension, pending contemplation or enquiry into the charges. If the contention of the petitioner that the management has no power to suspend during the period of re-employment is accepted, then the management has to remain only as a silent spectator for whatever done by the teacher on extension. The very purpose of re-employment of teaching staff is only to benefit the interests of the students, as their education should not be disrupted, if a teacher retires on attaining the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year. The very purpose of re-employment of teaching staff is only to benefit the interests of the students, as their education should not be disrupted, if a teacher retires on attaining the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year. That is why the Government have issued Orders enabling the management of the schools to extend the services till the end of the academic year, subject to the conditions contained in the Government Orders issued from to time. One of the conditions is that the teacher, who is attaining the age of superannuation should maintain good record of service, the character and conduct and should be not detrimental to the interests of the institution. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the first respondent, a person, who is alleged to have committed financial irregularities cannot be permitted to continue, as the management has the absolute discretion to suspend a teacher, pending contemplation or enquiry into the charges. Therefore, on going through the pleadings and materials, I do not find that there is any manifest illegality in suspending the petitioner from service. It is also seen that the recommendations have been made by the previous management, without considering the above aspect by the person in charge, under the interim Orders of the Civil Court. Merely because recommendations have been sent earlier, that does not mean that the successive management has no right to enquire into the financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner nor does it absolve him of the charges. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted then any outgoing teaching or non-teaching staff can be given a clean certificate by the persons at the helm of office and any financial irregularity can be hushed up with collusion. 67. Right of re-employment is subject to the satisfaction of the conditions contained in the Government Order issued in this regard from time to time and if the management is of the opinion that the person, who had recommended for re-employment, has no authority to do so, it is always open to them, to direct the teacher to handover the charges to a person nominated by the management. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 5.7.2008. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 5.7.2008. Based on the letter, dated 31.7.2008 of the then Correspondent/Manager, the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, in his proceedings, dated 1.8.2008, has permitted re-employment between 1.8.2008 a 31.5.2009 subject to certain conditions. Condition No. 6 of the said Order, states that if the work and conduct the re-employed teachers is not satisfactory, during the period of re-employment, then he would be relieved, without any prior notice. In the case on hand, certain financial irregularities have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioner prior to the date of attaining the age of superannuation and the erstwhile management did not take any disciplinary action. After noticing the same, the Governing Board has resolved to take disciplinary action. Condition No. 6 is indicative of the powers of the management and the educational authorities to relieve a teacher, during the period of re-employment even without notice and in such circumstances, invoking the power of suspension cannot be said to be manifestly illegal. It is well known that if an employee causes financial loss to the institution, action can be taken against him for recovery, if the charges are held proved. In view of the above, W.P. Nos. 7866 and 7938 of 2008 are dismissed. 68. Assailing the impugned Orders, dated 17.11.2008 of the Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai respectively, Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 10618 and 10732 to 10738 of 2008, submitted that the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, has granted permission to fill up the posts in the above said colleges. Earlier, the petitioners were duly interviewed and appointed against sanctioned vacancies by the Secretaries, who were competent to do so. He further submitted that merely because there was some change of office bearers, that would not invalidate the appointments made by the then Secretaries, whose appointments were recognised and approved by the Directorate of Collegiate Education, on 31.7.2008. 69. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the absence of cancellation of appointment, after providing a reasonable opportunity, the third respondent in the above writ petitions, has no jurisdiction to hold that the appointment of the petitioners as illegal, on the sole ground that this Court in C.R.P. No. 2527 to 2729 of 2008, etc. 69. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the absence of cancellation of appointment, after providing a reasonable opportunity, the third respondent in the above writ petitions, has no jurisdiction to hold that the appointment of the petitioners as illegal, on the sole ground that this Court in C.R.P. No. 2527 to 2729 of 2008, etc. dated 18.8.2008 has set aside the Orders of status quo granted by the Civil Court, Chennai. He also submitted that when the University has already recognised the educational qualifications applicable to the posts held by the petitioners, their appointments cannot be said to be invalid. 70. Mr. Pannerselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 10698 to 10701 and 10859 of 2008, on the issue of validity of the appointments of lecturers and assailing the impugned Order, dated 17.11.2008, reiterated the submissions of the other learned counsel and also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008. 71. Challenging the Order of appointment, dated 11.8.2008, to the post of Lecturer in Mathematics, made by the previous Secretaries Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, respectively Mr. Jeyapaul, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 10131 to 10133 of 2008, submitted that the Secretary of the above mentioned colleges has no competence or authority to fill up the posts of lecturer in Mathematics. He further submitted that the appointment committee for selection of eligible candidates was never convened nor any eligible candidates was interviewed to fill up the posts of Lecturer. 72. Referring to the notification issued by the Bishop and Manager of all TDTA colleges, Palayamkottai to the effect that no appointments should be made in the schools and colleges, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions on the file of this Court, the erstwhile Secretaries, inspite of objections issued by the Manager of all TDTA colleges, have hurriedly filled up the posts of lecturer in mathematics in the above said colleges, even without the recommendation of the appointment committee. He therefore submitted that the appointments are contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges (Regulations) Act and the bye-laws governing the administration of the colleges under the Diocese. Hence, he prayed to quash the appointment Orders. 73. In W.P. No. 89 of 2009, the petitioner has challenged the termination of his appointment. Mr. He therefore submitted that the appointments are contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges (Regulations) Act and the bye-laws governing the administration of the colleges under the Diocese. Hence, he prayed to quash the appointment Orders. 73. In W.P. No. 89 of 2009, the petitioner has challenged the termination of his appointment. Mr. Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that besides challenging the competence of the authority, who has terminated the services of the petitioner, he has also challenged the procedure in conducting the departmental enquiry. He further submitted that certain fake records have been created for the purpose of terminating the services of the petitioner. Though the respondents have been served, no counter affidavit has been filed. Therefore, he prayed that the matter may be de-linked from the batch, so as to enable him to advance arguments on the merits of the case, after the receipt of the counter affidavit. Perusal of the averments filed in support of the Writ Petition shows that the termination of the petitioner's services has been made following a departmental enquiry into charges. 74. Record of proceedings shows that while entertaining the Writ Petition on 7.1.2009, learned counsel for the second respondent has been directed to file counter affidavit and subsequently, the interim stay granted has been periodically extended. Though the arguments of both parties relating to the validity of the appointment are identical, yet the procedural violations in the manner of enquiry and in passing of final Orders have not been refuted by filing any counter affidavit. In such circumstances, this Court deems it fit to direct the Registry to de-link W.P. No. 89 of 2009 from the batch of writ petitions. 75. In W.P. No. 8880 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the Order of transfer, dated 6.10.2008, transferring him from St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai to West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur due to the transfer of Mr. Robert Stipen. On the same day, he has been relieved from his duty in St. John's Higher Secondary School. The Orders are assailed on the ground that it was due to the dispute between the two factions of the management and that it should not be made without the prior approval of the Chief Educational Officer, and District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, respondents 1 and 2. John's Higher Secondary School. The Orders are assailed on the ground that it was due to the dispute between the two factions of the management and that it should not be made without the prior approval of the Chief Educational Officer, and District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, respondents 1 and 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the standing committee for the educational institutions of the Diocese is the competent authority to take a decision on appointment or transfer. In the absence of any meeting of the standing committee, the recommendation of the adhoc committee cannot be the basis for transfer. Besides, the Order of transfer is vindictive as he had refused to give evidence in favour of the Bishop, stating that an election was conducted in the school premises that because of his non-cooperation with one of the factions of the administration of the Diocese, he was transferred with an oblique motive. It is also his further contention that since he is a close relative of previous Lay secretary, transfer has been effected out of mala fide. 76. Manager, TDTA Higher Secondary/Secondary Special Schools and Teacher Training Institute, Tirunelveli Diocese, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that the petitioner has already completed three years of service in the fourth respondent school. The fifth respondent school, viz., West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur, is within town bus limits and there are frequent buses plying from Tirunelveli to Tenkasi. It is further submitted that the third respondent has every jurisdiction and authority to transfer any staff from one school to another school, within the administrative area considering the exigency and other surrounding circumstances. It is also submitted that the petitioner himself had executed an agreement with the management that he can be transferred to any school within the control of the same management and therefore, he has no locus to question the Order of transfer. 77. The respondent has further submitted that the petitioner was served with an Order of transfer on 6.10.2008 and directed to handover the charge in the Afternoon. The petitioner sent a communication to the Correspondent, St.John Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, on 6.10.2008, stating that he is proceeding on Medical Leave, on and from 6.10.2008 to 9.10.2008. 77. The respondent has further submitted that the petitioner was served with an Order of transfer on 6.10.2008 and directed to handover the charge in the Afternoon. The petitioner sent a communication to the Correspondent, St.John Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, on 6.10.2008, stating that he is proceeding on Medical Leave, on and from 6.10.2008 to 9.10.2008. But the same time, he had signed the attendance register on 6.10.2008 and sought for Medical Leave by way of Telegram, dated 6.10.2008 sent at 3.59 P.M. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner has tampered with the attendance register with the connivance of the Headmaster. It is further submitted that the Order of transfer is not punitive and the allegations of mala fide are denied. He further submitted one Mr. Alex Samuel Viswasam, a Physically handicapped person, was appointed as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant by the fourth respondent by Order dated 7.10.2008 in St.John Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, on a humanitarian consideration. 78. The impugned Order of transfer dated 6.10.2008, reads as follows: "on the recommendation of the standing committee on higher education which met on 3.10.2008, you are hereby transferred from St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai to West Tirunelveli Higher Seecondary School, Nallur in the vacancy caused by the transfer of S.Robert Stipen. You will handover the charge at the former school in the Afternoon of 6.10.2008 and take charge at the later school in the Forenoon of 7.10.2008." 79. On the same day, another Order has been issued relieving the petitioner from St. John's Higher Secondary School, so as to enable him to join duty in the transferred school. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has already completed three years of service in the fourth respondent-School has not been disputed. Besides, perusal of the Order of transfer shows that the standing committee on Higher Education, which met on 3.10.2008, has taken a decision to transfer the petitioner. The Order per se does not disclose any mala fide or ill-will against the petitioner and that the contentions to the contra, made in the affidavit are pure questions of fact, which this Court would not venture to adjudicate in this Writ Petition. That apart, no materials have been placed to substantiate the allegations of mala fide. Besides, taking into consideration of the physical incapacity, another person has been posted in the fourth respondent-School on humanitarian grounds. That apart, no materials have been placed to substantiate the allegations of mala fide. Besides, taking into consideration of the physical incapacity, another person has been posted in the fourth respondent-School on humanitarian grounds. In such view of the matter, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any strong case of mala fide nor there is any extra-ordinary circumstances, warranting interference with the Order of transfer made on administrative exigency. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 80. In W.P. No. 9604 of 2008, the petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the resolution of the third respondent therein, dated 7.10.2008 passed in the Special Meeting of the Governing Board held on 6.10.2008 and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 therein to forward the proposals for re-employment of the petitioner as Headmistress in the third respondent-School till the end of academic year 31.5.2009, and consequently, direct the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli to issue necessary Orders for re-employment of the petitioner, till 31.5.2009. 81. It is the case of the petitioner that she was promoted as Headmistress in the third respondent-School on 5.6.2007 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008. As per the prevailing Rules and Government Orders, she is eligible for re-employment till the end of academic year, i.e. 31.5.2009. Therefore, she made a request on 1.10.2008, along with the Medical Certificates to the third respondent. There was an election to the Church Administration during 2007 and several cases were filed in Civil Courts. After final Orders were passed in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008, respondents 2 and 3 have started disturbing appointments made during the interregnum period. In recommending re-employment, the respondents 2 and 3 have adopted discrimination. After the receipt of the representation, a Governing Board, was convened on 6.10.2008, wherein, it was alleged that certain charges have to be framed against the petitioner and that he was found not eligible for extension of service. The petitioner was also served with a charge memo on 10.10.2008, for which, an explanation dated 15.10.2008, has been submitted, disputing the allegations of non-maintenance of accounts. It is the grievance of the petitioner that charges have been framed purposefully to deprive the petitioner's chances of re-employment till the end of academic year. The petitioner was also served with a charge memo on 10.10.2008, for which, an explanation dated 15.10.2008, has been submitted, disputing the allegations of non-maintenance of accounts. It is the grievance of the petitioner that charges have been framed purposefully to deprive the petitioner's chances of re-employment till the end of academic year. Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in 2008 (1) MLJ 312 , the petitioner has contended that unless the teacher is unfit medically and on account of misconduct, he/she is entitled for re-employment till the end of the academic year. 82. The Manager, TDTA High/Higher Secondary/Special Schools and Teacher Training Institutes, Palayamkottai, in his counter affidavit, has submitted that re-employment is not a prerogative right of the petitioner. According to the respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner has caused serious financial irregularities, including embezzlement of money collected from the students and that the teacher has also misappropriated funds. Hence, disciplinary action was taken against her. 83. Respondents 2 and 3 have further contended that it is the duty of the Management to see before Ordering re-employment, whether the teacher seeking re-employment satisfies the primary condition as to whether, his/her character and conduct are good. Reliance has also been placed on the decisions of this Court in W.A. Nos. 2693 of 2003, dated 16.3.2007, wherein, this Court has held that the Management can reject the requisition for re-employment if the applicant faces any disciplinary proceedings. 84. Respondents 2 and 3 have further contended that the Governing Board in which the petitioner is also a member was convened. While reviewing the performance of the petitioner, during the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.8.2007, several lapses and irregularities in financial administration were found. A special audit of school records handled by the petitioner, conducted between 19.8.2008 a 22.8.2008 revealed that the petitioner had committed large scale administrative/accounting lapses and misappropriation of money. In the meeting conducted on 6.10.2008, the petitioner was also one of the participants. Two show cause notices, dated 10.10.2008 were also issued to the petitioner calling for explanation regarding financial lapses and non-accounting of money leading to misappropriation, for which, the petitioner gave a reply on 15.10.2008, admitting several portions of the charges. 85. In the meeting conducted on 6.10.2008, the petitioner was also one of the participants. Two show cause notices, dated 10.10.2008 were also issued to the petitioner calling for explanation regarding financial lapses and non-accounting of money leading to misappropriation, for which, the petitioner gave a reply on 15.10.2008, admitting several portions of the charges. 85. The respondents have further contended that in respect of Tuition Fee Account, the petitioner has not credited the amount to the Government and kept the money for nearly three to four months, which is admitted in the reply submitted to the charges. The amounts set apart for Scholarship was not disbursed within 15 days as per the Rule, though it was credited in the account as early as on 6.7.2008. She had started to disburse the amounts only on 11.9.2007 after two months. According to the respondents, the undisbursed amount should not be kept by the Headmaster and ought to have been sent to the Government immediately, from the date of encashment of the cheque. There is also a delay in remitting the undisbursed scholarship into the Treasury, which was done only on 7.11.2008. 86. It is also the case of the respondents that besides delay in remittance, certain monies were also not properly accounted for. A sum of Rs. 6,69,500/- ought to have been credited in the Management Bank account, whereas, a sum of Rs. 5,69,500/- was credited in the exclusive Headmaster's Savings Account No. 2254. The audit has found out the above financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. The explanation to the charges No. 3 to 7 were not satisfactory. In these circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 have contended that the petitioner is not above Board and he does not satisfy one of the conditions for re-employment of maintenance of clean record of service. 87. It is also submitted that the representation of the petitioner, dated 1.10.2008, along with Medical Certificates were not received by the management. In these circumstances, the respondents 2 to 3 have submitted that there is no illegality in the resolution of the governing board to take disciplinary action, as well as in not extending employment, on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 88. By way of reply, the petitioner has submitted that the charges framed against him are false and without any basis. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 88. By way of reply, the petitioner has submitted that the charges framed against him are false and without any basis. As regards the first charge of not crediting the Tuition Fees, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though initially the allegations were made, on receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the respondents have not chosen to include the said allegation in the charge memo. As regards the delay in disbursement of scholarship to the sons of Beedi Workers, he stated that the Welfare Commissioner used to send the Demand Draft only after few months from the date of the proceedings and as soon as the Demand draft reached the school on 3.9.2007, it was presented on 6.9.2007, encashed and disbursed on 11.9.2007 itself. Therefore, there is no truth in the allegations. After payment of scholarship of Rs. 5,07,610 out of 5,26,000/-, the remaining undisbursed amount was sent to the Welfare Commissioner by proceedings dated 7.11.2007 and therefore, he has denied the allegation of illegal custody or retention of money for more than two months. Similarly, denying the allegations of retention of Rs. 50,000/- and belated remittance, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to the serious problem in the management, on account of elections and the closure of school for Christmas holidays, between 23.12.2007 and 2.1.2008, the amount was not sent to the Government. But immediately after re-opening of the School, the amount was remitted in the Management account on 7.1.2008. Pertaining to the allegations of remittance of Rs. 1 lakh on 30.6.2008 and which was not accounted for, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 6.69,500/- had been remitted in the School Account on various dates, i.e. 30.6.2008, 27.7.2008, 22.7.2008 a 12.8.2008. The petitioner has denied the allegations of siphoning of funds and that he has not committed any misconduct. For the first time, the Correspondent of the School has made serious allegations to deprive the legitimate right of re-employment. The petitioner has reiterated that he has submitted an application on 1.10.2008 to the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli seeking for re-employment. According to him, the counter affidavit sworn to by the Second respondent of the School is false on merits of the case and therefore, prayed to issue suitable directions for appropriate legal action against the respondents. The petitioner has reiterated that he has submitted an application on 1.10.2008 to the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli seeking for re-employment. According to him, the counter affidavit sworn to by the Second respondent of the School is false on merits of the case and therefore, prayed to issue suitable directions for appropriate legal action against the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 89. As rightly contended by the management, re-employment is not a prerogative right of the petitioner, but it is subject to satisfying the parameters contained in the Government Orders. In the case on hand, the Special Audit conducted between 19.9.2008 to 22.9.2008 of the School records handled by the petitioner has brought about certain administrative and financial irregularities and there is also an allegation of misappropriation. The resolution of the Governing Board of Mary Sargent Higher Secondary School for Girls, Palayamkottai, held on 6.10.2008, is as follows: "The Special Audit committee has brought out large scale administrative / accounting lapses and misappropriation of money and irregularity and indiscipline in financial matters by the Headmistress of the School. This Board resolves to forward the Audit Report to the Manager, TDTA Secondary / Higher Secondary / Special Schools for taking further necessary action. The Board considered the question of granting extension to Tmt.Gladys Ebenezer Nesapackiam, Headmistrems of this School, who is to retire on superannuation on the AN of 31.10.2008. The Special Audit Report of the School has brought out many serious financial irregularities and the Headmistress, who is the person responsible for the lapses, has to defend herself against these financial irregularities. In view of the clouds of charges against her, the request of the Headmistress for granting extension of service beyond 31.10.2008, is not feasible of compliance. The Board therefore permits Ms. Gladys Ebenezer Nesapackiam, Headmistress to retire from service on 31.10.2008 A.N., without prejudice to the disciplinary action, if any, comtemplated against her." 90. The Charges framed on 10.10.2008 are as follows: "(1) A sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) shown in the Cash Book as deposit made into the Bank on 31.12.2007 was not remitted into any of the bank account. (2) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh only) entered in the Cash Book has been remitted into the S.B Account No. 2554 with Indian Overseas Bank on 30.6.2008. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) shown in the Cash Book as deposit made into the Bank on 31.12.2007 was not remitted into any of the bank account. (2) A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh only) entered in the Cash Book has been remitted into the S.B Account No. 2554 with Indian Overseas Bank on 30.6.2008. Further, on verfication of the other entries in the Bank Pass Book, those entries did not tally with the entries in any of the official account books maintained by you. (3) As against a sum of Rs. 4,42,450/- (Four lakhs forty two thousand four hundred and fifty only) under the head "Welfare Money", you have remitted to the Diocese Rs. 3,99,250/- (Three lakhs ninety nine thousand two hundred and fifty only). You have not accounted for the balance amount of Rs. 43,200/- (4) As against a sum of Rs. 46,465/- (Forty six thousand four hundred and sixty five only) received by you from the class teachers of the school under the heading "Hand Book" for the year 2007-08, you have paid Rs. 37,935/- (Thirty seven thousand nine hundred and thirty five only) to the printer, viz., Good Samaritan Offset as per their bill No. 417, dated 13.8.2007. You have not accounted for the balance amount of Rs. 8,530/- (Eight thousand five hundred and thirty only). (5) You have collected under the head "Computer Money" a total sum of Rs. 2,77,450/- (Two lakhs seventy seven thousand four hundred and fifty only) of which you have remitted Rs. 84,500/- (Eighty four thousand five hundred only) into the Diocese. You have not accounted for the balance amount of Rs. 1,92,950/- (One lakh ninety two thousand nine hundred and fifty only). (6) A sum of Rs. 2,64,988.20 (Two lakhs sixty four thousand nine hundred and eighty eight and twenty paisa) has been collected from the students of the school by the class teachers for the academic year 2008-09 and handed over to you. You are not able produce any account for the money so collected. (7) An unspent balance amount aggregating Rs. 46,543/- (Forty six thousand five hundred and forty three only) handed over to you by the class teachers of LKG to V Std., (E.M) and XI to XII for the year 2007-08 did not find in the accounting channel." 91. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 15.10.2008. (7) An unspent balance amount aggregating Rs. 46,543/- (Forty six thousand five hundred and forty three only) handed over to you by the class teachers of LKG to V Std., (E.M) and XI to XII for the year 2007-08 did not find in the accounting channel." 91. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 15.10.2008. The charges involve financial irregularities, act of misappropriation etc., In view of the same, the request of the Headmistress for granting extension of service, beyond 31.10.2008, has been found not feasible of compliance. Therefore, the Board of Higher Secondary Schools, has retired the petitioner from service on 31.10.2008, without prejudice to the disciplinary action. The question as to whether the petitioner has committed the acts of misconduct are not, is a matter for evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority. Sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot exercise the power of Judicial Review to go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the charge memo and assume the role of Enquiry Officer. Courts have consistently held that even if the Enquiry Officer records a finding of fact on some probable evidence, it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence and give a contrary finding to that of the enquiry officer or the fact finding authority, unless such finding is perverse or it is a case of no evidence. In such view of the matter, it is not open to the petitioner to insist that the factual aspects, which form part of the disciplinary proceedings should be examined at the threshold by this Court to give findings on the charges and adopting such a procedure would run contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Hence, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any strong case to compel the management to re-employ the petitioner till the end of the academic year. Mandamus cannot be issued contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government where, one of the factors to be considered by the management is maintaining of good track record of service. The decision relied on by the management in W.A. No. 2693 of 2003 dated 16.3.2007 is applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 92. The decision relied on by the management in W.A. No. 2693 of 2003 dated 16.3.2007 is applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 92. Referring to Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the Manager, TDTA Primary and Middle School, CSI Diocese, Palayamkottai in WP. No. 7979 of 2008, Mr. Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioners/teachers/ submitted that the contesting respondents themselves have admitted that between 25.7.2008 and 29.8.2008, the administration of the schools and colleges was in the hands of few people and therefore, the persons in Office, having satisfied with the educational qualifications of the teaching staff, have appointed/promoted the teachers to the sanctioned posts in various schools under the Diocese, according to merit. As per the bye-laws, the Correspondent of the School is competent to make appointments/promotions and therefore, when the competence and authority of those, who had appointed the teachers, during the interregnum period was not disputed, the appointment made by them cannot be termed as illegal. 93. Referring to the information, dated 9.2009, obtained from the District Educational Officer (incharge), Tirunelveli, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Mr. David Paulraj was functioning as Correspondent of the school as on 12.8.2008 and therefore, when there were no allegations against the petitioners/teachers of gaining fraudulent appointments nor they have found any deficiency in the educational qualifications for the respective posts to which they were appointed/promoted, merely because there was a dispute between two groups of management, the interests of the poor teachers should not be affected as long as their appointments are valid in law. 94. Referring to Paragraph Nos. 46 and 47 of the Order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 94. Referring to Paragraph Nos. 46 and 47 of the Order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while setting aside the Orders made in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, granting status-quo ante (sic) on the date, prior to 21.12.2007, this Court in the above CRPs, in the interest of functioning of the institutions, observed that there should not be any inconvenience to the students, teachers and other staffs, but the action taken by the officers said to have been elected as per Exhibit R-1 document, which was considered as a supporting evidence to come to a prima facie conclusion of the conduct of elections to the Diocese of Tirunelveli, is arbitrary, mala fide and runs contrary to the very observations of this Court made therein. According to him, the object of permitting the so called elected officers is only to administer the public institutions and indiscriminate method adopted by the persons in present management, causing inconvenience to the teaching staff and students is detrimental to the institutions and it is nothing but mal administration. 95. Inviting the attention of this Court to the observations made in the CRPs., that Exhibit R-1 cannot be taken as gospel truth or said to have been fabricated in the absence of the materials, he submitted that the revision petitions came to be disposed of, holding that the interim Orders obtained by the plaintiffs therein was by fraud on the Court. Placing reliance on the Order made in C.R.P. No. 1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007, setting aside the directions of the learned District Munsif in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No. 194 of 2007, dated 6.11.2007 to hold elections for the Pastorate Committees as well as Diocesan council member from Nanguneri Dhanavoar and other places, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in view of the earlier Orders passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1784 of 2007, any elections held subsequent to the directions of the Civil Court, have no force to reckon with. According to him, the Order made in C.R.P. No. 1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007 was not placed before The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN, when revisions petitions came to be disposed of. According to him, the Order made in C.R.P. No. 1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007 was not placed before The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN, when revisions petitions came to be disposed of. He further submitted that non-production of the Order made in above CRP., amounts to suppression of the fact and fraud committed by the revision petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2527 to 2529 of 2008. According to him, the legal position would be that once the interim directions to hold election for certain phase, are set aside, the parties have to be relegated to the original position, as if no elections were held and even assuming that the elections are held, that would be non-est in law and the consequences of which is that the so called members said to have been elected, cannot hold any office. Had the Order made in C.R.P. No. 1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007 been produced by the Bishop, who was the party to it, then the learned Judge would not have set aside the interim Orders granted by the Civil Court, Chennai. 96. Referring to the record of proceedings in I.A. No. 1649 of 2008 in O.S. No. 349 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the matter pertains to fourth phase of election. When the matter was posted on 17.12.2007 and 19.12.2007 for evidence, the respondents therein reported that the election was adjourned. For filing of the report, the matter stood adjourned to 20.12.2007. But on 3.1.2008, the respondents therein reported to the Civil Court at Valliyoor that elections to Tirunelveli Diocese was over on 21.12.2007 itself and hence, the relief sought for in the suit has become infructuous. However, no documents were filed before the Civil Court to prove the conduct of the elections and in such circumstances, the learned District Munsif granted status quo as on 17.12.2007. 97. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though an appeal was filed by the Diocese through the Bishop, no stay was granted. Both the Orders passed on C.R.P. No. 1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007 and the Orders passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Valliyoor were not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Justice Tamilvanan, at the time of disposal of C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 and 2529 of 2008. 98. Both the Orders passed on C.R.P. No. 1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007 and the Orders passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Valliyoor were not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Justice Tamilvanan, at the time of disposal of C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 and 2529 of 2008. 98. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1981 SC 1473 : (1981) 4 SCC 132, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when appointments were made in the interregnum period, the office bearers, viz., Correspondents and Managers of the Schools were competent to make appointments/promotions and even assuming that the appointment of the Corespondents/ Managers, were to be treated as contrary to Rules, then the actions or the discharge of their duties, in the matter of administration of educational institutions cannot be set at naught, by holding that al the appointments/ promotions/re-employment etc. as illegal and contrary to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Applying the De-facto doctrine to the facts of this case to save the poor teachers, who are put to agony, due to the disputes between two factions of Tirunelveli Diocese, he prayed that the appointments/promotions etc. cannot be said to be illegal. He also submitted that the decision made in C.R.P. No. 2527 to 2529 (sic) of 2008 etc., has been challenged before the Supreme Court and having regard to the fact that in many cases, undertakings have been given by the private respondents that they would not disturb the functioning of the teaching staff in various educational institutions, this Court, may permit them to continue in the posts till the disposal of the SLPs. 99. Referring to the Orders made by this Court in CRP. Nos. 457 and 458 of 2008, dated 15.4.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that any subsequent elections said to have been conducted after the Order of status quo is non-est in the eye of law and therefore, the punitive action taken against teaching and other personnel, appointed by previous group cannot be terminated and that they cannot also be reverted, by the incumbents to the Offices of Correspondent or Manager in the educational institutions, as the case may be. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008 was also pressed into service. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008 was also pressed into service. For the above said reasons, he prayed that writ petitions be allowed as prayed for. 100. Mr. M.Joseph Thatheus Jeorme, learned counsel appearing for the Management, officer bearers in-charge of the administration of the school/colleges in all the writ petitions, submitted that the Standing Committee on Higher Education appointed Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, as Correspondent and Secretary of St. John's College, and Sara Tucker College, for the period between 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2008. He had arbitrarily called for interview of candidates on 13.8.2007, but postponed the same. On 29.10.2007, Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, resigned as Correspondent and Secretary of St. John's College and Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar was appointed by the Executive Committee. Elections were held on 14.12.2007 a 21.12.2007. The new office bearers took charge of the educational institutions and several cases were filed in the Civil Courts to prevent the new office bearers from functioning. However, no interim Orders were passed restraining them from discharging their duties. Pursuant to the elections, the Standing Committee on Higher Education by resolution No. 4 resolved to restrict the earlier resolution of the Executive Committee, dated 29.10.2007 to be operated only up to 24.4.2008, regarding the appointment of Correspondents to the Colleges. By resolution No. 10, a Sub Committee for preparation of the Diocesan Waiting list of candidates, seeking employment was formed consisting of the Bishop, Vice-Chairman, Clerical Secretary, Lay Secretary, Diocesan Treasurer, and the Secretary of Standing Committee, so as to avoid, any arbitrariness in the matter of filling up of the posts in various educational institutions run by Diocese of Tirunelveli. Yet another resolution No. 12 was also passed to form a selection committee of candidates from the seniority waiting list of the Diocese and the said committee was formed, consisting of the members of the sub-committee referred above, which included the Correspondents of all TDTA colleges, B.Ed colleges, Principals of the above colleges, and the Manager of TDTA Higher Secondary Schools, High Schools, Special Schools and Teacher Training Institutions. 101. Learned counsel for the management further submitted that in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, the City Civil Court at Chennai in an application for injunction granted an Order of status quo on 30.4.2008. 101. Learned counsel for the management further submitted that in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, the City Civil Court at Chennai in an application for injunction granted an Order of status quo on 30.4.2008. The Office bearers appointed by the Bishop from the elected body filed I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, to recall and rescind the earlier Order made in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, dated 30.4.2008. On 11.7.2008, after getting opinoin from the learned Additional Advocate General, the Government have opined that the Bishop's appointment from the newly elected committee on 24.2.2008, is legal and may be allowed to continue. However, the City Civil Court, by Order dated 21.7.2008, varied the earlier Order of status quo dated 30.4.2008, in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008, and Ordered status quo ante as on the date, prior to 21.12.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the Diocese and the Office Bearers filed C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 and C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2601 and 2602 of 2008. When the matter was pending before this Court at Madras, the illegal appointees, in the presence of Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar have signed the attendance register in St. John college and other lecturers also did the same in the respective institutions on 12.8.2008. Hurriedly, they got the qualifications of the illegal appointees approved from Manonmaniam Sundaranar University on the very next day itself, on 13.8.2008. After considering the nature and relief sought for in various litigations instituted in various suits in the Courts at Nanguneri, Valliyoor and other places in Tirunelveli District and the attempt of erstwhile Secretaries and other Office Bearers to stall the functioning of the elected members, the Principal Bench at Madras, by its Order, dated 18.8.2008, in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 and C.R.P. (PD) No. 2601 and 2602 of 2008, held that the interim Order of status quo dated 30.4.2008 and the subsequent modification were obtained by playing fraud on Court, suppression, non-impleading of necessary parties and by forum shopping from a Court having no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. When the revision petitions were disposed of in the above manner, the illegal appointees/promotees cannot claim any benefit of such fraudulent interim Orders. In this context, he relied on the decisions in (1997) 5 SCC 772 and AIR 2004 SC 2915 : (2004) 2 SCC 783 . When the revision petitions were disposed of in the above manner, the illegal appointees/promotees cannot claim any benefit of such fraudulent interim Orders. In this context, he relied on the decisions in (1997) 5 SCC 772 and AIR 2004 SC 2915 : (2004) 2 SCC 783 . 102. Learned counsel for the management further submitted that having regard to the manner in which, Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Others, have usurped the Office of the Secretary of St. John's College and other educational institutions and taking note of the observations of the Principal Bench of this Court in Civil Revision Petitions C.R.P. Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 and C.R.P.(PD) No. 2601 and 2602 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, has rightly passed Orders, dated 29.8.2008, setting aside the earlier Order dated 31.7.2008, permitting Thiru.ADCJ. Thinahar, and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar to function as Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College, and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, respectively. 103. Inviting the attention of this Court to the proceedings, dated 22.9.2008 and 23.9.2008 of the Governing Board of Sarah Tucker College, Palayamkottai and St. John's College, respectively, learned counsel for the Management submitted that the Governing Board has authorised the Secretaries of the respective colleges to nullify the illegal appointments. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to the Principals of the concerned colleges, and memos were also given to the Heads of the concerned Departments to verify the current status of the illegal appointments from 24.8.2008 to 11.9.2008. Replies were given by the concerned. Notices were also issued by the Diocesan Authority calling upon the illegal appointees to submit their certificates for verification. 104. Referring to the resolution No. 21, of the Executive committee, dated 29.10.2007, learned counsel for the management further submitted that when Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, submitted his resignation from the post of Correspondent and Secretary of St. John's College, the same was accepted by the Executive committee and on the recommendation of the Executive Committee, it was decided to appoint Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar as Secretary of the said college from 29.10.2007. On 24.4.2008, the Standing Committee on Higher Education in its 304th Special Meeting, by resolution No. 4, decided to restrict the tenure of the Secretaryship of the Colleges upto 24.8.2008. 105. On 24.4.2008, the Standing Committee on Higher Education in its 304th Special Meeting, by resolution No. 4, decided to restrict the tenure of the Secretaryship of the Colleges upto 24.8.2008. 105. Inviting the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Standing Committee, dated 24.4.2008, learned counsel for the Management further submitted that the term of Office of Mr. ADJC. Thinahar has come to an end with the appointment of Dr. D. Ranjan Sundara Kumar, Secretary of St. John's College, Palayamkottai. On 21.7.2008, the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, have surreptitiously obtained an Order of status quo ante as on 21.12.2007. Even if the said interim Order has to be applied, then it would date back only till the completion of the tenure of Secretaryship, i.e. on 31.5.1998, and the plaintiffs and Others claiming rights under them have no jurisdiction to assume that they were permitted by the Executive Committee or Standing Committee, as the case may be to function as Secretaries and Correspondents of the colleges, and in other educational institutions as Correspondents/Managers to make any appointments, promotions, etc. 106. Inviting the attention of this Court to the findings of the Principal Bench at Madras, learned counsel for the Management submitted that Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, have played fraud on the Court in obtaining interim Orders, dated 30.4.2008 and 21.7.2008. On the basis of the same, the Directorate of Collegiate Education, by dated 31.7.2008, enabled them to continue as Secretaries of Sara Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, respectively till the disposal of the suit. Taking this Court through the paper notifications made by the Diocese and its Office bearers on 8.8.2008, 9.8.2008 that no appointments should be made, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 and C.R.P. (PD) No. 2601 and 2602 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Bench at Madras. He submitted that Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Others, without any paper publication and following other known modes of recruitment, conducting any interview, without the knowledge of Diocese, the office bearers, and the respective appointment committees, have made illegal and indiscriminate appointments/promotions in committing large scale of mal-practice and appointed/promoted their close relatives and confidants on 11.8.2008, in the colleges and on 12.8.2008 in various Schools. 107. 107. Pointing out the date of the Seal of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, affixed on the proposals, i.e. on 28.8.2008, sent for approval of appointments of lecturers in the colleges, learned counsel for the Management further submitted that the averments made in the affidavits, filed in support of the writ petitions by lecturers, stating that they were sent on 13.8.2008 is another attempt to play fraud on this Court. The Principal Bench at Madras disposed of the Civil Revision Petitions on 18.8.2008, holding that a fraud has been committed on the Court in obtaining the interim Orders. But the erstwhile Secretaries of the colleges, in collusion with the appointees, in Order to cheat the education department for approval and salary, have made false averments to this Court. 108. Inviting the attention of this Court to the parties to lis in O.S. No. 62 of 2008, on the file of District Court, Tirunelveli, learned counsel for the Management submitted that Mr. Ernest Balasingh, was one of the plaintiffs, along with Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar. He further submitted that most of the Writ Petitioners are either related or confidants of the then Secretaries/Correspondents/Managers, who have filed suits before the Civil Courts in Tirunelveli District as well as parties to the proceedings to O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, pending on the file of the Civil Court, Chennai. Some of the writ petitioners, who have been appointed/promoted in the schools have also filed various suits in the Civil Courts, but none of them have disclosed the said fact in the present writ petitions. All the petitioners are members of the Diocese and they are also aware of the disputes pending in the Civil Courts. Most of them are also parties to the suits instituted in various Courts challenging the election and that they cannot plead ignorance and claim equity. He therefore, submitted that it is not open to writ petitioners to contend as if they are unaware of the disputes and therefore, their appointments are validly made. 109. Learned counsel for the Management further submitted that deliberately, they have failed to implead those who had appointed/promoted them to various posts in schools/colleges and they have also failed to implead the educational agency or the Diocese as party respondents to the writ petitions. 109. Learned counsel for the Management further submitted that deliberately, they have failed to implead those who had appointed/promoted them to various posts in schools/colleges and they have also failed to implead the educational agency or the Diocese as party respondents to the writ petitions. Being parties to various litigations in the lower Courts, either by themselves or through their relatives, the writ petitioners have deliberately, described Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar as Secretaries of the respective colleges even today and there is no bona fide in their claim. As remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is equitable, the petitioners, who have deliberately suppressed, the pendency of various suits, and the knowledge of change in Secretaryship in the colleges, and other Offices of the Schools are not entitled to seek any equitable remedy at the hands of this Court. In this context, he relied on the decisions in (2008) 1 MLJ 508 : (2008) 1 LW 1 (SC) and (2008) 5 MLJ 659 : (2008) 3 LW 355 . 110. Taking this Court to the averments made in the affidavits, filed by the Teachers/Lecturers, learned counsel for the management further submitted that the Writ Petitioners have not disclosed any details of paper notification, Display in the notice board of the educational institutions, any letter addressed to them calling upon them for interview along with other eligible candidates in the waiting list of unemployed maintained in Diocese or any other mode for calling for applications offering employment, date of their application, date of interview, mode of selection, etc. to validate the appointments in consonance with the Church Rules, Statutes and the Rules, governing the appointments/promotions in colleges/schools/teacher training institutions, as the case may be. 111. To sustain the impugned Order, dated 17.11.2008, issued by the Secretaries of the colleges, learned counsel for the Management further submitted that the Order is self-explanatory and contains valid reasons for discharging the services of the lecturers, who were the beneficiaries of the fraud played by Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar. The appointments/promotions etc., made in collusion with the writ petitioners, without following the recruitment Rules prescribed under the Statute and the Rules and against the Diocesan Rules, are fruits of fraudulent activities and such illegal and fraudulent appointments do not confer any legal right on the petitioners to seek for an opportunity of hearing. 112. Thinahar and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar. The appointments/promotions etc., made in collusion with the writ petitioners, without following the recruitment Rules prescribed under the Statute and the Rules and against the Diocesan Rules, are fruits of fraudulent activities and such illegal and fraudulent appointments do not confer any legal right on the petitioners to seek for an opportunity of hearing. 112. Learned counsel for the management further submitted that the appointments based on the Interlocutory Orders obtained by suppression of fact, fraud, non-impleading of necessary parties and forum shopping do not enable beneficiaries of fraud any statutory or contractual right to insist that the Management should provide an opportunity nor they have any right to seek for approval of their appointments. Nevertheless notices were issued to the individual lecturers to submit their certificates for verification and preliminary enquires were made to find out whether their appointments were in accordance with the statutory recruitment Rules. In this context, he placed reliance on the decisions in (1997) 2 MLJ 49 : (1997) 1 CTC 564, (2006) 3 LW 22(2) SN (SJ), (2008) 2 LW 71 (SC), AIR 1996 SC 2552 : (1996) 5 SCC 365 : 1996-II-LLJ-763. According to the learned counsel for the management, their demand is nothing but an attempt to perpetuate the fraud and illegality played by Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Others, who had illegally assumed the posts of Secretaries/Correspondents/Managers in the educational institutions on the basis of the interim Orders obtained by playing fraud on the civil Court and the appointments/promotions made during the interregnum period of interim Orders from 30.4.2008 and on 11.8.2008 a 12.8.2008 in respect of colleges and schools respectively, cannot be legalised. 113. Referring to Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976, learned counsel for the Management further submitted that the term of the Office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be three years. If the Educational Agency intends to change the Secretary within a period of three years, it shall do so with the prior approval of the Director. Application for approval of change in the Secretaryship shall be made to the Director in Form-6. But in the case on hand, the Secretaryship of Dr. If the Educational Agency intends to change the Secretary within a period of three years, it shall do so with the prior approval of the Director. Application for approval of change in the Secretaryship shall be made to the Director in Form-6. But in the case on hand, the Secretaryship of Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar has come to an end as on 31.5.2008 itself and in the light of the decision of the Principal Bench of this Court, holding that the interim Orders were obtained by playing fraud, suppression of facts and forum shopping, the cancellation of Secretaryship of Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, and Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar, by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, by Order, dated 29.8.2008, cannot be found fault with. All the appointments to various posts made by them are illegal and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the Management relied on the decisions in (2001) Supp MLJ 134 : (2002) 1 CTC 183, (2005) 1 MLJ 233 : (2005) 1 LW 48 , (2007) 4 SCC 221 : (2007) 3 MLJ 784, AIR 2002 SC 1230 : (2002) 3 SCC 586 , and (2008) 3 MLJ 155 : (2008) WLR 310. 114. Learned counsel for the Management further submitted that inasmuch as the Schools/Colleges run by TDTA are recognised as Minority institutions by the educational authorities, the Management has got absolute right to appoint Secretaries/Correspondents/Managers to the colleges and schools established and administered by them and to make appointments to various educational institutions of their choice, following the recruitment Rules, wherever applicable. The right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India as held in AIR 2003 SC 355 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 , cannot be infringed by persons, who have lost the elections and played fraud on the Courts. 115. Insofar as writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10653 of 2008 and 726 of 2009, filed by the Association, Mr. D.Vedhanayakam, Secretary and Correspondent of St. John's College, Palayamkottai, and the Secretary of Governing Board of the said colleges, has filed separate counter affidavits to both the writ petitions. Based on the averments, Mr. Jeorme learned counsel for the Management submitted that the so-called Secretary of TDTA Employees Welfare Association and Dr. D.Vedhanayakam, Secretary and Correspondent of St. John's College, Palayamkottai, and the Secretary of Governing Board of the said colleges, has filed separate counter affidavits to both the writ petitions. Based on the averments, Mr. Jeorme learned counsel for the Management submitted that the so-called Secretary of TDTA Employees Welfare Association and Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Others have filed O.S. No. 62 of 2007, before the District Court, Tirunelveli, to declare the elections alleged to have been held to six Church councils of Diocese of Tirunelveli on 4.12.2007 as null and void and not binding upon the members of Tirunelveli Diocese. He also sought for a declaration that the elections said to have been conducted on 21.12.2007 for the post of Vice-Chairman, Clerical Secretary, Lay Secretary, Diocesan Treasurer, and the Secretary of Standing Committee as null and void and sought for a Mandatory injunction directing the first defendant therein to announce fresh election to the Church Council and Diocesan Council on getting instructions from the Executive Committee of the Diocese, as per Chapter I (B) and Chapter V and Rule 6 of the Constitution of the Diocese of Tirunelveli. 116. Learned counsel for the management submitted that from the reliefs sought for, it could be safely concluded that elections were already over on 4.12.2007 and 21.12.2007 to various offices in the Diocese. Being aware of the entire proceedings in the civil Courts and the Orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 etc., and the action taken against the illegal appointees made by Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, the Association has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the educational authorities of School/Colleges to issue suitable directions to the private respondents 9 to 14 not to affect the conditions of service of the members of the petitioner's association and to regularise the illegal Orders of transfers/appointment/promotions/re-employment of teachers etc. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that the association has no locus standi to prefer the present writ petitions and seek for any remedy from this Court, muchless a remedy in the form of a Writ of Prohibition not to affect the conditions of service of those persons, who were illegally appointed. 117. The learned counsel for the Management submitted that the association has no locus standi to prefer the present writ petitions and seek for any remedy from this Court, muchless a remedy in the form of a Writ of Prohibition not to affect the conditions of service of those persons, who were illegally appointed. 117. According to him, right to appoint teaching and non-teaching staff, promote, transfer etc., and to take disciplinary action against erring staff is a constitutional guarantee conferred on the minority institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and that the petitioner, who claims to be the President of TDTA Association has no locus standi to question the Diocese or the persons incharge of administration of the educational institutions, indirectly by filing writ petitions. He also submitted that Mr. Ernest Balasingh, the socalled Secretary of the Association having failed to get any Orders from the District Court Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 62 of 2008, cannot approach this Court for the same relief. 118. Learned counsel for the Management also submitted that the post of Principal, St. Johns College is vacant and in Order to avoid any discreet selection, the said vacancy was sought to be filled up by an eligible candidate through Public Notification in newspapers. There is nothing wrong in the notification and anybody including the members of the petitioner's association can also apply for the said post. In such circumstances, he submitted that issuance of public notification to fill up the said vacancy cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 119. Learned counsel for the Management further submitted that Diocese through its lawful educational authorities had notified the vacancies in the post of Lecturers, in its colleges, on 19.11.2008 and 172 candidates underwent the Written test. Interview was processed by the appointment committee and after assessment of inter-se merits, candidates have also been selected and they are awaiting assumption of Office. Inasmuch as the process initiated by the Dioceses is in accordance with the Statute, and in a fair and open manner, in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the impugned notification issued cannot be said to be violative of the Constitutional Provisions or the enactment, governing the same. 120. Inasmuch as the process initiated by the Dioceses is in accordance with the Statute, and in a fair and open manner, in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, the impugned notification issued cannot be said to be violative of the Constitutional Provisions or the enactment, governing the same. 120. He also submitted that most of the members of the association have preferred invididual writ petitions to vindicate their cause and therefore, seeking a collective remedy for all the members by the association is not permissible and hence, liable to be rejected. According to the learned counsel for the Management, two writ petitions filed by the Association are purely to expose his personal vendetta and mala fide. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions filed by the teachers/lecturers/association/the erstwhile secretary, the beneficiaries of fraud. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 121. The edifice of the present litigation in relation to Secretaryship of Sarah Tucker and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, and appointments/promotions/reversions/ disciplinary action against the teachers/non-extension of retired teachers on attaining their age of superannuation/appointment of lecturers of colleges arises out of the Orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2009, etc., dated 18.8.2008. Both parties have submitted that notice in the Special Leave Petition has been Ordered by the Supreme Court and leave has not been granted yet. As the educational institutions run by Diocese are in a state of chaos, the appointments/promotions of teaching staff are yet to be approved by the educational authorities and the teachers/lecturers claim they remain unpaid for their services in the educational institutions and having regard to the interest of the students and the educational institutions, this Court deems it fit to extract the facts leading to the Orders passed in the Civil Revision Petitions, decided by the Principal Bench of this Court. 122. The necessary facts culled out from the Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: "2. It is an admitted fact that all these impugned Orders and the corresponding Civil Revision Petitions are relating to the suit in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, which was filed by the respondents 2 to 59 in CRP (PD) Nos. 122. The necessary facts culled out from the Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: "2. It is an admitted fact that all these impugned Orders and the corresponding Civil Revision Petitions are relating to the suit in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, which was filed by the respondents 2 to 59 in CRP (PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 as plaintiffs of the suit, under Order VII Rule 1 CPC, seeking Judgment and Decree in favour of the plaintiffs for declaration that they have been duly elected as the office bearers of the Church Council and Diocesan Council of the second defendant, the Diocese of Tirunelveli (C.S.I), represented by its Bishop and also for consequential permanent injunction restraining the said second defendant, its men, subordinates, agents etc. from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs discharging their duties and performing their function including in the matter of appointment and transfer of teachers in schools and colleges of the second defendant Diocese. The respondents 2 to 59 being the plaintiffs in the suit filed Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, seeking for ad-interim injunction restraining the Diocese of Tirunelveli (CSI), its men, subordinates, agents etc., from interfering in any manner with the petitioners discharging duties and performing their function in their respective posts in the matter of appointment and transfer of teachers in schools and colleges run by the second respondent Diocese. 3. It is seen that in the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 7857 of 2008 filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC by the second defendant, Diocese of Tirunelveli, represented by its Bishop, the prayer sought for is to return of the plaint filed in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, however, by Order, dated 30.4.2008, the aforesaid application was dismissed by the Court below. In the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, the Court below directed both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. As per the finding, it was held by the Court below that both of them have not submitted all the relevant documents and having viewed that there might be some discrepancy in the election and on the doubts in the averments regarding the genuineness of the alleged elected members, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo. As per the finding, it was held by the Court below that both of them have not submitted all the relevant documents and having viewed that there might be some discrepancy in the election and on the doubts in the averments regarding the genuineness of the alleged elected members, both the parties were directed to maintain status quo. I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 has been field by the second defendant to recall and rescind the Order of status quo, dated 30.4.2008 made in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 in the said suit. 4. I.A. No. 7860 of 2008 was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs to receive additional document, which was allowed by Order, dated 21.7.2008. I.A. No. 8507 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiffs, under Section 151 CPC to clarify the nature, extent and scope of the Order of the status quo, as per Order passed on 30.4.2008 in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, the said application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that there was no need to clarify the Order passed in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008. Against the Order, the plaintiffs have not preferred any revision. 5. I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 was filed by second defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and Section 151 CPC to recall and rescind the Order of status quo, dated 30.4.2008 made in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, that was resisted by the respondents / plaintiffs. However, by Order dated 21.7.2008, the Court below allowed the application filed by the second defendant, Diocese of Tirunelveli (SCI), but directed the parties to maintain status quo, as on the date, prior to 21.12.2007, instead of the earlier Order, dated 30.4.2008 passed in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, whereby the Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo only prospectively on 30.4.2008. As per the decreetal Order, it is seen that the application filed in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 has been stated as allowed by the Court below. The prayer in the application is only to recall and rescind the status quo Order, dated 30.4.2008. As per the decreetal Order, it is seen that the application filed in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 has been stated as allowed by the Court below. The prayer in the application is only to recall and rescind the status quo Order, dated 30.4.2008. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, having allowed the said application, the Court below could have recalled and rescind the Order of status quo, but strangely granted status quo ante in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs with effect from 21.12.2007 against law and without any jurisdiction by the Court below. 6. In the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, the respondents / plaintiffs have sought for an interim injunction to restrain the revision petitioner / second defendant in the suit from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners in their respective posts alleged by them. However, by Order, dated 30.4.2008, the Court below has granted only an Order of status quo. The Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 7857 of 2008 was filed by the second defendant / the Diocese of Tirunelveli (CSI), represented by its Bishop to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which was dismissed by the Court below, by Order, dated 30.4.2008. Aggrieved by which, the second defendant / the Diocese of Tirunelveli (CSI), represented by its Bishop has preferred C.R.P (PD) No. 2527 of 2008. 7. In the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, as per the Order, dated 30.4.2008, the respondents / plaintiffs have sought for interim injunction to restrain the Diocese of Tirunelveli (CSI), represented by its Bishop, second defendant in the suit from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners, as elected office bearers. However, by Order, dated 30.4.2008, the Court below had granted only an Order of status quo to be maintained by both the parties. Aggrieved by which, C.R.P (PD) No. 2601 of 2008 has been preferred. Subsequently, by Order, dated 21.7.2008 passed in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008, the Court below has directed the parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date prior to 21.12.200Aggrieved by which, C.R.P (PD) No. 2602 of 2008 has been preferred." 123. Aggrieved by which, C.R.P (PD) No. 2601 of 2008 has been preferred. Subsequently, by Order, dated 21.7.2008 passed in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008, the Court below has directed the parties to maintain status quo ante as on the date prior to 21.12.200Aggrieved by which, C.R.P (PD) No. 2602 of 2008 has been preferred." 123. After considering the elaborate arguments advanced by the rival parties and having regard to the relief sought for in the plaint, i.e., for declaration that the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, have been duly elected as Office bearers of the Church council and Diocesan Council of the second defendant therein, Diocese at Tirunelveli in the respective post as detailed in the Annexure to the plaint and for the consequential permanent injunction restraining the second defendant at Tirunelveli, its men, subordinates, agents, etc from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs discharging their duties and performing their function including in the matter of appointment and transfer of teachers of the schools and colleges of the second defendant, Diocese in Tirunelveli and other suits filed in the Courts at Tirunelveli, the Principal Bench, at Paragraph 37, held as follows: "37. It is seen that the plaintiffs themselves have filed a document, copy of the letter, addressed to Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, dated 31.12.2007 before the Court below, wherein Mr. A.D.J.C.Thinahar, respondent number 48 in C.R.P (PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, describing himself as Lay Secretary, has stated that there was no proper election conducted for the second defendant Diocese and hence, previously elected office bearers be permitted to continue the administration. It is a document marked only by the respondents / plaintiffs before the Court below, wherein one of the plaintiffs has specifically stated in the written representation that no election was conducted and that the respondents / plaintiffs be permitted to continue as past office bearers of the Diocese, but totally contrary to the statement, dated 31.12.2007 in the plaint cause of action is alleged by the respondents / plaintiffs that they were all duly elected office bearers, as per election conducted on the specified dates and holding the office and based on which, sought for declaration and permanent injunction. Further, as per the Order passed by this Court, by Hon'ble Mr. Further, as per the Order passed by this Court, by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM, in W.P.(MD) No. 4912 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008, dated 4.6.2008, it has been held as follows : "According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the elections are over and new office bearers have actually taken charge in the Association. But, on the contrary, according to the learned counsel for the third respondent, that there was no election at all and the old office bearers are continuing in the Association and hence, it is not proper for the petitioner to state that either election was over or new office bearers took charge of the Association." As per this Order, the learned counsel appearing for one of the plaintiffs, namely A.D.J.C. Thinahar, third respondent therein had stated that there was no election conducted and that the old office bearers are continuing. This is also totally a self-contrary view against the alleged cause of action and other averments of the plaint and also against the prayer sought for in the suit. In the aforesaid circumstances, the document produced by the respondents / plaintiffs, showing a list of elected persons can no way be accepted as a genuine document to decide the Interlocutory Application in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs. The aforesaid averments by one of the plaintiff to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli and the representation made by his counsel in the writ petition would show that the cause of action alleged in the plaint is incorrect and false and which is binding on all the plaintiffs." (emphasis supplied) 124. While setting aside the Order made in I.A. No. 9666 of 2006, ie., Ordering status quo ante prior to 21.12.2007, the learned Judge of this Court, at Paragraph No. 38, held as follows: "38. As per the Order, dated 30.4.2008 passed in Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, the Court below has directed to maintain status quo. But in the petition filed by the revision petitioner in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008, by Order dated 21.7.2008, the Court below has granted status quo ante prior to 21.12.2007. There was no such prayer sought for by the said revision petitioner herein. Strangely, the Court below has granted such a relief in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs, without any basis. There was no such prayer sought for by the said revision petitioner herein. Strangely, the Court below has granted such a relief in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs, without any basis. In the written representation submitted by one of the plaintiffs, namely A.D.J.C.Thinahar, one of the plaintiffs on behalf of others, had asked the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli to recognise them to continue and hold the office, as previously elected office bearers on the ground that there was no proper election conducted for the Diocese. However, totally contradictory to the representation, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with a different cause of action, stating that they are all duly elected office bearers, holding their respective posts and as such, sought for declaration and injunction in their favour against the Diocese of Tirunelveli, the second defendant in the suit. The Court below unfortunately has granted the said relief, by directing the parties to maintain status quo ante, prior to 21.12.2007, that was actually claimed by the respondent number 48 herein, in his representation made before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, though there was totally a contradictory averments in the plaint. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned Order passed in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 on 21.7.2008 by the Court below is against law and facts, which leads to miscarriage of justice." 125. At paragraph 45, the Court, after finding that there is deliberate suppression of facts, fraud played on the Court further held that the impugned Orders passed by the Civil Court in I.A. No. 6890 of 2008 and I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 are ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction however, taking note of the fact that the Diocese of Tirunelveli is running various educational institutions and hospitals, observed that the functioning of the aforesaid public institution should not suffer and the same must be administered without causing any inconvenience to the students, teachers and other teaching members and public. In the background of the litigation, the Court, at Paragraph No. 49, held that they were substantial materials available on record to show that the plaintiffs therein have played fraud on the Court below and obtained an Order of status quo and therefore, cannot be permitted to administer the institutions pending disposal of the suit. In the background of the litigation, the Court, at Paragraph No. 49, held that they were substantial materials available on record to show that the plaintiffs therein have played fraud on the Court below and obtained an Order of status quo and therefore, cannot be permitted to administer the institutions pending disposal of the suit. Having regard to the document, Exhibit R-1, a certified copy of the Minutes maintained by the Diocese of Tirunelveli, wherein the names of the Office Bearers have been stated and produced by the Bishop, Head of Diocese of Tirunelveli, being the Chief Election Officer, the Principal Bench of this Court, observed that Exhibit R-1 cannot be construed as a fabricated document in the absence of any contra material. The Court ultimately permitted the Diocese of Tirunelveli rep. By its Bishop, to continue the administration with the Office Bearers including the C.R.P. (PD) No. 2607 and 2608 of 2008, holding the respective posts, till the disposal of the suit. 126. Perusal of the materials on record, shows that the Standing Committee on Higher Education under the Chairmanship of the Bishop met on 1.6.2007, resolved to fix the tenure of the Correspondent and Secretaryship of Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, Sarah Tucker College, Perumalpuram and St. John's College, Palayamkottai from 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2008. Apart from the said individual, the tenure of Office of Correspondentship in respect of Colleges, High School, Higher Secondary Schools, Teacher Training Institution and College of Nursing were also fixed upto 31.5.2008. The Correspondentship of Mr. David Palraj and Mr. Daniel Sigamani Simeon and Others, who have made appointments/promotions in various schools are also fixed only upto 31.5.2008. Subsequently, on 12.11.2007, in the presence of Bishop, the Executive Executive had convened its 246th Meeting. Record of proceedings of the meeting enclosed in the typed set of papers, filed by the Management shows that Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, desired to resign from Correspondentship, as he had to leave to a foreign country and therefore, Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar, had been recommended to be appointed as Secretary of St. John's College from 29.10.2007. The said of proceedings, dated 12.11.2007, enclosed in the typed set of papers, is signed by Mr. MGR.Sukumar and Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, Secretaries of the Executive Committee. Ranjan Sundara Kumar, had been recommended to be appointed as Secretary of St. John's College from 29.10.2007. The said of proceedings, dated 12.11.2007, enclosed in the typed set of papers, is signed by Mr. MGR.Sukumar and Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, Secretaries of the Executive Committee. Perusal of record of proceedings of the 304th (Special) Meeting of the Standing Committee on Higher Education held on 24.4.2008, shows that sub-committees have been constituted for, (1) preparation of the Diocesan Waiting list of candidates, seeking employment was found consisting of the Bishop, Vice-Chairman, Clerical Secretary, Lay Secretary, Diocesan Treasurer, and the Secretary of Standing Committee. (Resolution No. 10) and (2) A Selection Committee of candidates from the seniority waiting list of the diocese was formed, consisting of the members of the sub-committee referred above, which included the Correspondents of TDTA colleges, B.Ed colleges, Principals of the above colleges, and the Manager of TDTA Higher Secondary Schools, High Schools, Special Schools and Teacher Training Institutions. (Resolution No. 12) 127. The record of proceedings, dated 24.4.2008 of the Executive Committee shows that for administrative reasons and for smooth functioning of the educational institutions under the Diocese, the tenure of Correspondent ship fixed earlier in the resolutions of the Standing Committee on Higher Education, dated 1.6.2007 and 29.10.2007, was restricted upto 24.4.2008. On the basis of the resolution passed by the Standing Committee on Higher Education, which met on 24.4.2008, Mr. D.Vedhanayakam and Mr. G.Jebarajan, have been appointed as Secretaries of St. John's College and Sara Tucker College, Palayamkottai respectively by the Bishop in Tirunelveli and Chairman of the Governing Board. 128. In the mean while, Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Others, have filed O.S. No. 2898 of 2008, on the file of Civil Court at Chennai and I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, have obtained an Order of status quo claiming themselves as duly elected office bearers of the Church Council and Diocesan Council of the second defendant, Diocese of Tirunelveli and claimed to be holding the respective posts as detailed in the Annexure to the plaint. The Order, dated 25.7.2008, enclosed at Page 8 of the typed set of papers filed by Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, the petitioner in W.P. No. 10196 of 2006, reads that as per the resolution No. 4 of the Diocesan Executive Committee, dated 26.5.2008, he was requested to continue as Correspondent of St. The Order, dated 25.7.2008, enclosed at Page 8 of the typed set of papers filed by Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, the petitioner in W.P. No. 10196 of 2006, reads that as per the resolution No. 4 of the Diocesan Executive Committee, dated 26.5.2008, he was requested to continue as Correspondent of St. John's College, Palayamkottai from 1.6.2008, until the final verdict of the case in the Madras City Civil Court, as regards the fourth phase of the Diocesan Election is pronounced. The said Order is said to have been signed by Vice-Chairman, Lay Secretary and Clerical Secretary of CSI Tirunelveli Diocese, and not by the Bishop. 129. Perusal of letter No. 15484/D2 of 2008, Higher Education (D2) Department, dated 11.7.2008, of the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education, addressed to the Directorate of Collegiate Education, states that, "2. I am to state that Thiru. ADJC.Thinakar, Secretary Sarah Tucker College and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, St. John's College, Palayamkottai have been removed from the post of Secretary before the expiry of fully tenure by virtue of the resolution passed by the Standing Committee, Higher Education of the Diocese on 24.2.2008 and have been replaced by the newly elected members of the Committee. I am to state that Court of II Assistant, City Civil Court, Chennai, in its interim Order, dated 30.4.2008 in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 and 2898 of 2008 has observed for the reasons stated therein that there may be some discrepancy in the election and in the elected members and that the truth and genuinely of the elected members, will be decided only after full trial. The Court has further Ordered that till that time for better administration, the parties shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. 3. In this case the Additional advocate General has viewed that inasmuch as the resolution was passed by the Standing Committee on 24.2.2008 itself, appointing new Secretaries, it has to be construed that immediately thereafter all actions initiated by them and their appointment cannot be held to be illegal unless a specific Order is passed by a competent Court. The Additional advocate General has, therefore, opined that the appointments made by the newly elected committee members on 24.2.2008 may be approved and former secretaries cannot be allowed to be continued in the posts. 4. The Additional advocate General has, therefore, opined that the appointments made by the newly elected committee members on 24.2.2008 may be approved and former secretaries cannot be allowed to be continued in the posts. 4. I am to state that the Court has passed the Order to the effect that for better administration both the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. By virtue of the said Order of the Court, the Secretary appointed by the elected members of the Diocesan and functioning as such on the date of the Order of Court shall continue to function as Secretary. Since there is no direction from the Court in regard to approval of change in the Secretary, I am to state that it is for the competent authority to decide in the matter, if application is made taking into account merits of the case." 130. As stated supra, by Order, dated 21.7.2008, in I.A. No. 9666 of 2008, the learned 2nd Assistant Judge, has granted status quo ante on the date prior to 21.12.2007. On the basis of the said Order, the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, in his proceedings, dated 31.7.2008, passed Orders, directing Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar to function as Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, till the disposal of the suit. 131. At this juncture, it is relevant to revert back to the Order of the Principal Bench in Civil Revision Petitions (PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 etc., dated 18.8.2008, where, the learned single Judge has held that the documents produced by the plaintiffs therein showing a list of elected members can no way be accepted as a genuine documents to decide the Interlocutory Application in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and in the written representation, submitted by one of the plaintiffs therein, viz., Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, had asked the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli to recognise and continue them in the office, as previously elected Office bearers on the ground that there was no proper election conducted for the Diocese. 132. ADJC. Thinahar, had asked the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli to recognise and continue them in the office, as previously elected Office bearers on the ground that there was no proper election conducted for the Diocese. 132. The relief sought for in the injunction application in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, is to restrain the Diocese of Tirunelveli, rep., by its Bishop or their men etc., from interfering with the functions of the plaintiffs/petitioners from discharging their duties and performing their functions, including in the matter of appointment and transfer of teachers of the schools and the colleges of the second defendant of Diocese of Tirunelveli. Now, the Principal Bench in its judgment has categorically held that the Orders made in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 and I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 are ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction and that there has been suppression of material fact, fraud played on the Court, besides, forum shopping. This Court has also categorically held that the Writ Petitioner, Dr. Ranjan Sangara Kumar and other plaintiffs have played fraud on the Court and obtained the Order of status quo and that they cannot be permitted to administer the institutions pending disposal of the suit. The findings recorded by the Principal Bench at Madras has not been stayed, though a Special Leave Petition has been filed before the Apex Court. 133. Perusal of the Order, dated 29.8.2008 of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, shows that in perusance of the Orders made in the C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2527 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008, the earlier Order, dated 31.8.2007, permitting Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar has been cancelled with further directions that Mr. Jebaraj and Mr. D.Vedhanakam would function as Secretaries of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College,Palayamkottai. Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules provides that the term of Office of the Secretary shall ordinarily be three years. However, he/she shall be eligible for re-nomination for subsequent term. If the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so, only with the prior approval of the Director. Application for approval of change in the Secretaryship shall be made to the Director in Form-6. However, he/she shall be eligible for re-nomination for subsequent term. If the educational agency intends to change the Secretary within the period of three years, it shall do so, only with the prior approval of the Director. Application for approval of change in the Secretaryship shall be made to the Director in Form-6. Record of proceedings of the Standing Committee on Higher Education as well as Executive Committee of the Diocese of Tirunelveli shows that even before the expiry of the full tenure, i.e., 31.5.2008, as fixed earlier in the resolutions, dated 1.6.2007 and 29.10.2007, the period has been restricted upto 24.4.2008 and that there is a change of Secretaryship in both the colleges. Both the proceedings, dated 31.7.2008 and 29.8.2008, clearly shows that the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, has merely acted upon, the interim Orders of the Court, without there being any proposals from the educational agency. On 30.4.2008, there is no Order from either the educational agency or the competent authority, viz., the Executive Committee appointing Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Mr. ADJC. Thinahar as Secretaries of the above said colleges. When the Court had already found that persons who have played fraud no right to continue and administer the educational institutions, the contention that they should be given an opportunity of hearing is liable to be rejected for the reason that the very same person is a party before this Court in the Civil Revision Petitions. 134. The contention that Mr. Vedhanayakam, the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 8014 of 2008, has no locus standi to question the Order of approval, dated 31.7.2008, is also liable to be rejected for the reason that the above said Order of the Directorate has been passed on the basis of an illegal Order in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008, where the Civil Court had directed to the parties to maintain status quo as on the date prior to 21.12.2007. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Veerakathiravan that the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai had failed to ascertain the authenticity and jurisdiction of the persons, to make appointments to the post of Secretaries of the colleges before cancellation is not tenable, in view of the fact that pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Committee of the Diocese, the said Thiru.D.Vethanayakam and Thiru.G.Jebarajan have been appointed as Correspondent of St. John's College and Sarah Tucker College, Palayamkottai, respectively. Even in the Order, dated 31.7.2008 of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, permitting Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Mr. ADJC. Thinahar to function as Secretaries of the above said colleges, there is no reference to the appointment of the above said individuals to the post of Secretaries and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner in W.P. No. 10196 of 2008 to find fault with the Collegiate authorities. When the Directorate has permitted them to function as Secretaries without any Order of the Executive Committee or the Competent authority of the Diocese, they cannot turn around and contend that such Orders of appointment are required from the Executive Committee for allowing Mr. D.Vethanayakam and Mr. G.Jebarajan to function as Secretaries of the Colleges. Even in the writ petitions, Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar has not placed any Order of appointment as Secretary of the College beyond 30.5.2008. 135. The contention of Mr. Veerakathiravan as well as Mr. Vallinayakam that the Orders of the Civil Court in I.A. No. 1649 of 2007, in O.S. No. 347 of 2007 on the file of the District Musnif Court, Valliyoor and the Order made in C.R.P. No. 1784 OF 2008 have not been brought to the notice of the Principal Bench of this Court and therefore, there is suppression on the part of the Head of the Institution and had the above said Orders been placed before the Principal Bench, the Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 2527 to 2529 etc., would not have been disposed of in the manner stated therein, cannot be accepted for the reason that they cannot plead ignorance of the Orders of the Civil Courts at Valliyoor or Nanguneri and though there were so many plaintiffs, they have not chosen to place the Orders before the Principal Bench of this Court, because all along before the Courts at Tirunelveli, their case was that the elections were not over. Further, as against the categorical finding of suppression of fact, forum shopping and plying fraud on Court to obtain an interim Orders in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 and I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 the aggrieved parties have already approached the Apex Court. Besides, the writ petitioners represented by the learned counsel, Mr. Further, as against the categorical finding of suppression of fact, forum shopping and plying fraud on Court to obtain an interim Orders in I.A. No. 6990 of 2008 and I.A. No. 9666 of 2008 the aggrieved parties have already approached the Apex Court. Besides, the writ petitioners represented by the learned counsel, Mr. Vallinayagam, teachers, who are appointed/promoted/re-employed/reversed in the schools run by the Diocese have no locus standi to step into the shoes of the rival contestants to the posts in the Diocese and plead on their behalf, in the present writ petitions, particularly when some of the parties to the Civil Revision Petitions have taken up the matter before the Supreme Court. As of today, there is no stay of the Orders of the Principal Bench of this Court and this Court, is not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as it would amounting to reviewing the Orders made in the Civil Revision Petitions. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Mr. ADJC. Thinahar have no jurisdiction to continue in the office of Secretary and Correspondent of the Colleges and other educational institutions to make any appointments/promotions/transfers etc. The impugned Order, dated 29.8.2008 of the Director of Collegiate Education is valid and fully justified in the eye of law. 136. In the decision W.A.(MD) No. 393 of 2008, dated 25.8.2008 relied on by the petitioners, the facts of the case are that the Secretary of St. Jude's College, Kanyakumari, filed W.P. No. 3670 of 2008, praying to quash the proceedings, dated 9.2.2008, by the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, whereby, the appointment of the appellant, Rev.Father J.G.Jesudas as Secretary of the College was approved. The contention of the writ petitioner therein was that the proceedings, dated 26.3.2008, the very same authority had renewed the Secretaryship of the college for a period from 8.3.2008 to 7.3.2011 in favour of the writ petitioner and without setting aside the said Order, the impugned Order dated 9.4.2008, approving the secretary ship of Rev. Father J.G. Jesudas, the appellant therein had come to be passed without notice to him. Father J.G. Jesudas, the appellant therein had come to be passed without notice to him. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that no prior approval of the Director has been obtained as per Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1970 has been obtained and that the principles of natural justice require issuance of notice to the party who is affected by the Order of approval of the appellant. In the writ appeal, it was contended inter alia that while approving the resolution of the committee, no notice is required to be issued to the outgoing secretary and approval of Secretaryship was only a Ministerial function. While setting aside the portion of the Order made by the Writ Court, the Division Bench held that no opportunity whatsoever is contemplated for issuance of any notice to the outgoing secretary by the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai. But the Division Bench observed that no prior approval has been obtained from the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, by filing Form-6 as per Rule 9(2) of the said Rules. 137. The above decision is not applicable to the peculiar facts of the present case, where the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, has passed Orders, dated 31.7.2008 and 29.8.2008, on the basis of interim Orders granted by Civil Court, without any reference to the proposals from the educational agency or the competent authority as the case may be. As stated supra, even the Orders of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, dated 31.7.2008, permitting Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Mr. ADJC. Thinahar to function as Secretaries of the colleges, is without reference to any proposal, sent by the educational agency and therefore, the said decision is inapposite to the facts of the present case. Hence, the impugned Order, dated 29.8.2008, of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, is sustained. The petitioner, who is found to have played fraud on the Court is not entitled of equitable remedy and claim continuance in office. Hence, W.P. No. 10196 of 2008 is dismissed. The Order of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, dated 31.7.2008 is no more in existence and therefore, the relief of Certiorari as prayed in W.P. No. 8014 of 2008 cannot be granted. 138. Hence, W.P. No. 10196 of 2008 is dismissed. The Order of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai, dated 31.7.2008 is no more in existence and therefore, the relief of Certiorari as prayed in W.P. No. 8014 of 2008 cannot be granted. 138. However, the prayer for mandamus in W.P. No. 8014 of 2008 to set aside the proceedings taken in pursuance of the said Order, i.e. 31.7.2008 of the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, is examined with reference to the submissions of the contesting parties as regards the validity of the appointments/promotions/re-employment etc. 139. The question left to be considered is whether the appointments/promotions/re-employment made by the erstwhile Secretaries of the colleges/Correspondents/Managers of various schools are valid and whether continuation of the teachers/lecturers in services would amount to perpetuation of illegality. 140. Primarily, it is the contention of the teachers/lecturers that their appointments/promotions/Orders of re-employment have been made by competent authorities, while in office and therefore, the same cannot be set at naught. The second contention of the teachers/lecturers is that even assuming that the Secretaries/Correspondents/Managers are alleged to have usurped the above said Offices, inasmuch as the petitioners satisfy the educational qualifications prescribed for the posts, the de-facto doctrine has to be applied to the facts of this case and that their appointments cannot be disturbed by the Bishop or his nominees by misquoting the Orders passed in the Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008. The further contention of the lecturers is that their educational qualification have already been approved the competent authority, viz., Manonmanium Sundaranar University and having regard to the fact that their appointments as Lecturers were made prior to the date of passing of the Order in the Civil Revision Petitions and the cancellation of approval by the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, vide proceedings, dated 29.8.2008, the appointments/promotions of the teaching staff of the colleges/Schools etc., cannot be nullified. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of any specific directions in Paragraph 47 and 49 of the Order made in the Civil Revision Petitions, quoting the said Order, for termination of the services of the lecturers, cancelling the appointments made in the schools promotions etc., without any opportunity to the teachers/lecturers, is violative of the principles of natural justice and illegal. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of this Court in W.A. Nos. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008, W.A.(MD) Nos. 22 to 24 of 2008, dated 30.4.2008, Kokaraju and Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), (1993) 2 MLJ 634 : (1993) 2 LLN 353. Per contra, relying the decisions stated supra, learned counsel for the management submitted that the teachers/lecturers cannot be permitted to continue in the post, as it would amount to perpetuating illegality. 141. As stated supra, the Standing Committee on Higher Education, by their resolution, dated 24.4.2008, have formed separate sub-committees for preparation of Diocesan Waiting list of candidates, seeking employment, so as to avoid any arbitrariness in various educational institutions run by the Diocese of Tirunelveli and that appropriate selection committee has also been constituted to select the candidates from the seniority waiting list in the Diocese. The contention of the management of forming the statutory appointments selection committee consisting of members mentioned stated supra, has not been disputed by the lecturers/teachers. According to the Management, after the scrutiny of the educational qualifications by the Certificate Committee constituted under the church Rules, the list would once again be placed before the Appointment Committees who after careful consideration of the interview report and certificate verification committee, recommend the names of the chosen candidates and that thereafter the selected candidates would be appointed by the Secretary of the concerned colleges which has to be countersigned by the Rt Rev Bishop who performs the function of the Manager of the TDTA College. The said averments has not been disputed by the writ petitioners. It is also case of the management that no appointment Order is valid without prior approval of the Bishop/ Manager. The contentions relating to the procedure in filing up of the vacancies have not been disputed by the lecturers/teachers. 142. Perusal of the pleadings and materials on record shows that a public notification has been given by the Bishop on 8.8.2008 in 'DINAKARAN' that no appointments should be made in the schools/colleges, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions in the Principal Bench of this Court. There are also public notifications dated 9.8.2008 and 10.8.2008 issued by the manager, TDTA colleges and Managers of Primary and Middle School/High School/Higher Secondary School/Teaching Training Institutions/Special Schools. There are also public notifications dated 9.8.2008 and 10.8.2008 issued by the manager, TDTA colleges and Managers of Primary and Middle School/High School/Higher Secondary School/Teaching Training Institutions/Special Schools. For inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointments to the vacancies in TDTA colleges and schools, the last date prescribed for receipt of the applications was 31.8.2008. 142(a) As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Management, neither the lecturers nor Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar, petitioner in W.P. No. 10196 of 2008, have filed any scrap of paper before this Court to prove that the appointments have been made by following any procedure such as public notification, interview by the duly constituted selection committee as required under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges (Regulations) Act and the Rules framed thereunder and also the guidelines of University Grants Commission. 143. Further, the contention of the Management that among the list of 30 candidates selected and appointed by Mr. ADCJ. Thinahar, on 11.8.2008, most of them are blood relations to the parties, who have filed cases against the Church, Diocese, Bishop and various administrative bodies have not been disputed. On perusal of the materials on record, it is clear that the writ petitioners, being members of the church, cannot plead ignorance of the disputes, pending before various Courts, because either they themselves or their near relatives are parties to the various civil suits, morefully described in the counter affidavit filed by the management. 144. in AIR 1981 SC 1473 , the question that was posed before the Supreme Court was that what would be the effect of declaration by the Supreme Court of the judgments pronounced by a District Judge in Criminal Appeals prior to the declaration that his appointment as Additional Sessions Judge as invalid. Applying the de facto doctrine, the Supreme Court, at paragraphs 4 and 15, held that, "The de facto doctrine is now well established that the acts of the Officers de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of officers de jure. 15. 15. A Judge, de facto, therefore, is one who is not a mere intruder or usurper but one who holds office, under colour of lawful authority, though his appointment is defective and may later be found to be defective. Whatever be the defect of his title to the office, judgments pronounced by him and acts done by him when he was clothed with the powers and functions of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy as judgments pronounced and acts done by a Judge de jure. Such is the de facto doctrine, born of necessity and public policy to prevent needless confusion and endless mischief. There is yet another Rule also based on public policy. The defective appointment of a de facto Judge may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he may be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no concern or consequence to the Judge except as a Judge. Two litigants litigating their private titles cannot be permitted to bring in issue and litigate upon the title of a Judge to his office. Otherwise so soon as a Judge pronounces a judgment a litigation may be commenced for a declaration that the judgment is void because the Judge is no Judge. A Judge's title to his office cannot be brought into jeopardy in that fashion. Hence the Rule against collateral attack on validity of judicial appointments. To question a Judge's appointment in an appeal against his judgment is, of course, such a collateral attack." 145. It could be seen from the above reported judgment, de facto doctrine is a doctrine of necessity and public policy. The acts of the Officers de facto performed by them, should be within the scope of their assumed official authority, in the interest of the public or third persons and not for the own benefits, which are generally valid and binding as if they were acts of officers, de jure. But in the case on hand, the Secretary of the College has no independent authority to appoint Lecturers, de hors the procedure and the statutory Rules. When several unemployed and qualified members are waiting, Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, has resorted to illegal appointments on 11.8.2008, taking advantage of the interim Orders of the Civil Court and Order dated 31.7.2008 of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai. When several unemployed and qualified members are waiting, Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, has resorted to illegal appointments on 11.8.2008, taking advantage of the interim Orders of the Civil Court and Order dated 31.7.2008 of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai. The de facto doctrine which is of necessity and public policy, cannot be made applicable to the peculiar facts of the present case, where no public interest is involved in the matter of appointments/promotion to lecturers/teachers, who have colluded with the then Secretary/Correspondent/Manager, to defeat the legitimate rights of eligible candidates. 146. in P. Mahamani v. Tamil Nadu Maganizide Limited, Salem (supra), the Financial Controller cum Secretary of the Company was placed under suspension by the managing Director. The said Order was challenged mainly on the ground that the Managing Director, who signed the Order of suspension, after obtaining the Orders of the Board of Directors was not legally competent to sign the Order of suspension. Further, the post being statutory, the Governor has the authority to initiate disciplinary action against him and that the Board of Directors have acted beyond the power in passing the resolution. Applying the de facto doctrine, the Order impugned was sustained. At Paragraph 11, the Division Bench, held at p. 640 of MLJ: "11. The de facto doctrine is now well established that the acts of the officers de facto performed by them within the scope of their assumed official authority in the interest of the public or third persons and not for their own benefit, are generally as valid and binding, as if they were the acts of officers de jure. It is founded on good sense, sound policy and practical experience. It is aimed at the prevention of public and private mischief and the protection of public and private interest. It avoids endless confusion and needless chaos. An illegal appointment may be set aside and a proper appointment may be made, but the acts of those who hold office de facto are not so easily undone and may have lasting repercussions and confusing sequels if attempted to be underdone. Where an office exists under the law, it matters not how the appointment of the incumbent is made, as far as the validity of his facts are concerned. It is enough that he is clothed with the insignia the Office, and exercises its powers and functions. Where an office exists under the law, it matters not how the appointment of the incumbent is made, as far as the validity of his facts are concerned. It is enough that he is clothed with the insignia the Office, and exercises its powers and functions. The official acts of such persons are recognised as valid on grounds of public policy, and for the protection of those having official business to transact." 147. The ratio decidendi of the reported judgment is that de facto doctrine is founded on good sense, sound policy and the practical experience. It is aimed at the prevention of public and private mischeifs and the protection of public and private interests. The acts of erstwhile secretaries, viz., Mr. ADJC. Thinahar and Dr. D. Ranjan Sundara Kumar, cannot at any stretch of imagination be recognised as valid on grounds of public policy nor it could be legalised in public interest, when there is total violation of statutory Rules and regulations relating to filling up of the vacancies in the post of Lecturers/Teachers in the colleges/Schools. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the management that in the absence of any approval of any appointments by the educational authorities and having regard to the fact the appointment of the lecturers was purely contractual, the individual interest of the writ petitioners accentuated by fraud and collusion, cannot out weigh the collective social interest of unemployed and qualified members of the Church and Others, who have applied pursuant to the notification of the competent of authority, fixing the last date for applying to the notified posts. The pleadings further disclose that the selection process was already over and the candidates are awaiting the verdict from this Court. 148. Let me now consider some of the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the management. (i) in Kanoria Chemicals v. U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) , the Supreme Court held that stay of operation of Order or notification only means the Order or notification which has been stated would not operative from the date of passing of stay Order and it does not mean that the Order notification has been wiped out from an existence. (i) in Kanoria Chemicals v. U.P. State Electricity Board (supra) , the Supreme Court held that stay of operation of Order or notification only means the Order or notification which has been stated would not operative from the date of passing of stay Order and it does not mean that the Order notification has been wiped out from an existence. If the Order of stay granted pending disposal of a Writ Petition/suit, or other proceedings, comes to end with the dismissal of the substantive proceedings and it is duty of the Court in such a case to put the parties in the same position, they would have been but for the interim Orders of the Court. (ii) in Karnataka Rare Earth v. Senior Geologist (supra), while explaining the scope of interim Orders that may be passed by the Supreme Court, the Court at Paragprahs 9 and 10 held as follows: "9. It is true that by the interim Orders passed by this Court the appellants were allowed during the pendency of the earlier appeals to operate under the mining leases, whether freshly granted or renewed and to effectuate the interim Orders the authorities were also directed to issue transport permits. Admittedly, the transport permits were obtained by the appellants after the dismissal of their appeals. The appellants claim that both the parties were ignorant of the dismissal of the appeals when the transport permits were issued and the granite blocks were exported. It is difficult to accept the plea of the appellants that the dismissal of the appeals was not in their knowledge inasmuch as the judgments must have been pronounced in an open Court and their counsel at Delhi must have gathered the knowledge thereof. In any case the appellants cannot be heard taking shelter behind their own convenient ignorance. In our opinion, whether they had the knowledge of the judgment or not and whether the transport permits were obtained by the appellants before the dismissal of the appeals during which the interim Orders were in operation or after the dismissal of the appeals when the interim Orders had ceased to operate would not make any difference. For the purposes of the law it is enough that the appellants have enjoyed the benefit under the interim Orders of the Court which have stood vacated with the dismissal of their appeals. For the purposes of the law it is enough that the appellants have enjoyed the benefit under the interim Orders of the Court which have stood vacated with the dismissal of their appeals. It is also noteworthy that this Court had not, in the earlier appeals, directed the judgment of the High Court to remain stayed in its entirety and this is an additional fact or which tells adversely on the appellants. 10. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 4482 : 2003 AIR SCW 5258, this Court dealt with the effect on the rights of the parties who have acted bona fide, protected by interim Orders of the Court and incurred rights and obligations while the interim Orders stood vacated or reversed at the end. The Court referred to the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit and held that the doctrine was not confined in its application only to such acts of the Court which were erroneous; the doctrine is applicable to all such acts as to which it can be held that the Court would not have so acted had it been correctly apprised of the facts and the law. It is the principle of restitution which is attracted. When on account of an act of the party, persuading the Court to pass an Order which at the end is held as not sustainable, has resulted in one party gaining advantage which it would not have otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffered but for the Order of the Court and the act of such party, then the successful party finally held entitled to a relief; assessable in terms of money at the end of the litigation, is entitled to be compensated in the same manner in which the parties would have been if the interim Order of the Court would not have been passed. The successful party can demand (a) the delivery of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim Order of the Court, or (b) to make restitution for what it has lost." 149. The successful party can demand (a) the delivery of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim Order of the Court, or (b) to make restitution for what it has lost." 149. Reading of both the above judgments of the Supreme Court makes it clear that as soon as the interim Orders of stay comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings the parties are to be relegated to the original position, but for interim Orders of the Court and if any party has gained an advantage which it would not otherwise earned, or the other party has suffered an impoverishment which it would not have suffer, but for the Order of the Court and the act of such party, then the successful party finally held to a relief or to make restitution of what it has lost. In the case on hand, the Principal Bench of this Court, has held that Dr. D. Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Mr. ADJC. Thinahar have obtained interim Orders from the Civil Court by fraud and suppression of material facts. Though Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Others have instituted several suits in the civil Courts at Tirunelveli, they were not able to get any interim Orders, either in the matter of elections or their office of Secretaryship/Correspondent/Managers in the colleges/Schools as the case may be. Therefore, as per the decisions in Kanoria Chemicals and Industries (cited supra), if they were to be relegated to the same position, they would have been, it should be construed that they are not eligible to hold the posts of Secretaries in the respective colleges or as Correspondent/Managers in the Schools. Further, as per the resolutions of the Standing Committee on Higher Education and Executive Committee of the Diocese, after 24.4.2008 or 31.5.2008, in which case they have no authority to make any appointments/ promotions etc., in the colleges. 150. in T.Vijendra Doss v. M.Subramaniam (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of suppression of fact and fraud, held that at p. 522 of MLJ: "appellants and their predecessors, are also guilty of suppressio veri. Ordinarily, a statute shall prevail over the common law principle. 150. in T.Vijendra Doss v. M.Subramaniam (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of suppression of fact and fraud, held that at p. 522 of MLJ: "appellants and their predecessors, are also guilty of suppressio veri. Ordinarily, a statute shall prevail over the common law principle. However, in a case of this nature, in the event of any conflicting interest, this Court in exercise of its equity jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution is to weigh the effect of a fraud and the consequences of non-impleadment of a necessary party. We would hold that the scale of justice weighs in favour of the person, who is a victim of fraud and thus, we should not refuse any relief in his favour, only because he might have been wrongly advised......" 151. It is now categorically held that the unsuccessful plaintiffs/petitioners including Dr.D.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, before the civil Courts at Tirunelveli have obtained interim Orders from the Civil Court, Chennai, without impleading the necessary and proper parties. Pleadings disclose that they have failed to implead those persons, who had appointed/promoted etc., to various posts in schools/colleges and they also failed to implead the educational agency or the Diocese as party respondents to the writ petitions. 152. As regards the contention of the teachers/lecturers, and that of Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar that appointments/promotions/Orders of re-employment in schools/colleges were made when Dr. Ranjan Sundara Kumar and Correspondents/Managers of the Schools were holding the respective posts, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions as to whether their appointments/promotions etc., are legal or obtained by any fraudulent method and whether such appointees are entitled to continue in Office. 153. in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (supra) , the Supreme Court on the facts of the case, held that time and again, this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance injustice and not to thwart it vide AIR 1984 SC 1401 . The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the High Court is, therefore, is not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle, but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. The lookout of the High Court is, therefore, is not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle, but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. When justice become the byproduct of an erroneous view of the law, the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. The Supreme Court further held that the High Court seemed to have entertained the notion that once an authority happened to pass an Order however, illegal, injustice or inequitable it may be, or even if the said authority was convinced that the Order was wangled from him by playing fraud, the Court would be helpless and the party thereto would also be helpless except to succumb to such fraud. 154. in Secretary, Saliar Mahajana Higher Secondary Schools v. G. Subburaj and Others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, with reference to Rule 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, by observing that appointment of an outsider can be made only if no qualified and suitable internal teacher is available, held that appointment of an outsider, as illegal and declined payment of salary. 155. In A. V. Pappayya Sastry v. Govt., of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court, held that at pp. 793 and 797 of MLJ: "20. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or Order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or authority is a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or Order-by the first Court or by the final Court-has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 23. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilised as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants. 35. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent Court of law after hearing the parties and an Order is passed in favour of the plaintiff applicant which is upheld by all the Courts including the final Court. Let us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss special leave petition but after granting leave decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such Order can truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies. Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All Orders passed by the Courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any Court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the Order. 36. The above principle, however, is subject to exception of fraud. Once it is established that the Order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such Order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent and non-est and cannot be allowed to stand. This is the fundamental principle of law and needs no further elaboration. Therefore, it has been said that a judgment, decree or Order obtained by fraud has to be treated as a nullity, whether by the Court of first instance or by the final Court. And it has to be treated as non-est by every Court, superior or inferior." 156. in K. Shekar v. Indrama (supra), the appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Professor. The selection Committee did not appoint him as Assistant Professor of Psychiatric Social Work. But appointed him as a Lecturer in Psychiatric Social Work, a post which admittedly not formed part of the advertisement. in K. Shekar v. Indrama (supra), the appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Professor. The selection Committee did not appoint him as Assistant Professor of Psychiatric Social Work. But appointed him as a Lecturer in Psychiatric Social Work, a post which admittedly not formed part of the advertisement. While testing the correctness of the said appointment, the Supreme Court held that before any appointment could be made to the post of Lecturer, the post should have been advertised together with eligibility criteria in respect thereof. The plea that since the post of Lecturer was lower than an Assistant Professor's it was not necessary to be advertised, if accepted would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court went on to hold that the absence of an advertisement necessarily deprived persons who could have applied for the post, of the opportunity of applying for the post. The Clause in the advertisement which enabled the Section Committee to recommend the candidate for a lower post if the candidate was not found suitable to fill the post applied for, did not give National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS) the power to appoint the recommended candidate against an unadvertised post. 157. in R. Arumugam v. Director of Medical Services (supra), the petitioner had secured appointment by impersonation, by producing false certificate. He was removed from service. Challenging the same, he preferred a Writ Petition. This Court on the facts of this Court found that the selection of the petitioner even though based on interview, was void ab initio, as the petitioner therein had no locus standi to attend the interview. The Court held that fraud has been played may be by the petitioner or somebodyelse but the fact remains that the petitioner being the beneficiary out of the said fraud is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement. 158. in Thangapandi v. M. Sivabalan (supra) , at Paragraph 9 and 10, held as follows at p. 158 of MLJ: "9. Private schools are required to discharge their, duties as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder and there can be no doubt that the Private Schools are thus discharging public duties and are subject to the control of statutory authorities. Private schools are required to discharge their, duties as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder and there can be no doubt that the Private Schools are thus discharging public duties and are subject to the control of statutory authorities. Therefore, they are expected to maintain decorum and give strict compliance to the provisions of law. 10. As far as the first respondent/writ petitioner is concerned, by virtue of a bogus proceeding, h was appointed by the 6th respondent school without following the provisions of Rule 15(4)(ii), extracted supra, that too when the post is not in existence and therefore, his selection itself is illegal and hence, the first respondent/writ petitioner cannot claim anything from the official respondents and at the most he can claim damages against the 6th respondent School Management, by initiating proper proceedings before proper forum." 159. In State of Tamil Nadu v. A.Gurusamy (supra), the Supreme Court held that a person who played fraud and obtained a false certificate cannot plead estoppel and that he cannot be allowed to the benefit of fraudulent certificate obtained from the authorities. 160. in District Basic Educational Officer and Another v. Dhanarajaikumar Shukla and Another (supra), the Supreme Court held that the appointments of 1st respondent being contrary to the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 6 of U.P. Basic Schools etc. and the same was a nullity. Appointment which was per se illegal could not have been directed to be legalised only because the appellant did not file its counter affidavit. The question involved in the Writ Petition was a legal question and the illegality committed cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. 161. in Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Others v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Others (supra), the Supreme Court having regard to alarming state of affairs regarding lack of integrity and seniority in the selection process which is expected to assess merit and recommend for appointment of competent and meritorious persons and while considering the question as to whether the selected candidates should be issued with the notice, at Paragraph 3, held as follows at p. 764 of LLJ: "3. A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of mal-practices in the selection process. The question, therefore, is : whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them ? A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of mal-practices in the selection process. The question, therefore, is : whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them ? It is true as contended by Mr. Santosh Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of selection of an individual his selection is not found correct in accordance with law, necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. In a case like mass mal-practice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore, the question emerges: whether the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they needed to be heard ? Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and given selection and appointment. The procedure adopted are in flagrant breach of the Rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 162. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, as stated supra, insofar as appointments made to the post of Lecturers/Teachers, sub-committees have been constituted by the Diocese for enumerating qualified unemployed persons for filling up of the posts in various educational institutions run by Diocese of Tirunelveli. A selection committee has also been constituted which included the Correspondents of TDTA colleges, B.Ed colleges and Principal of the colleges, Manager of TDTA Higher Secondary Schools, High Schools, Special Schools and Teacher Training Institutes. A paper notification has been issued by the Bishop on 8.8.2008, as Bishop and Manager of all TDTA colleges, stating that Mr. Selvin Jeyaraj appointed by him, as Managers of High/Higher Secondary Schools/ Special Schools and Rev.Peter Devadoss appointed as Manager of Primary Schools are functioning in that capacity as per the Diocesan Rules. It is further stated that the said appointments have no connection with the election for various officers in Diocesan Council. He has further notified that no appointments should be made, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions. It is further stated that the said appointments have no connection with the election for various officers in Diocesan Council. He has further notified that no appointments should be made, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions. Materials on record also shows that further paper notifications have been issued by the Manager of TDTA schools and the above said persons, for filling up the posts in colleges and primary/middle/High/Higher Secondary/Teacher Training Institutions/Special Schools. Pleadings and materials further disclose that the educational agency had called for interview of the candidates on 4.8.2007 from the employment waiting list, when Mr. ADJC.Thinahar, was the then Secretary of the College, till 29.10.2007. He had sent Telegrams postponing the interview. Many of the candidates, who are in TDTA college waiting list, have been given call letters, dated 4.8.2007 to attend the interview on 13.8.2007 in the Diocesan Office with regard to their applications for appointment. Enclosures at Page Nos. 209, 213 and 223 shows that call letters, dated 4.8.2007 have been issued to Ms. Jessi Theodore, Mrs.J.Vijila and Mrs.S.Venilla by the then Secretary, Mr. ADJC. Thinahar, of St. John's College and Sarah Tucker College, Palayamkottai. Telegrams have been sent to the above said persons as well as others, stating that the interview had been postponed. They have also made representations to the Diocesan Governing Board that they were not called for interview and that the posts have been filled up clandestinely without conducting any interview, contrary to the statutory Rules and regulations of the Diocese. Material on record at Page 101 of the paper book furnished by the Management shows that that 154th Meeting of the Governing Board of Sarah Tuckur college was held on 22.9.2008, in the presence of Bishop in Tirunelveli and Chairman of Diocesan college. Similar meeting has also been conducted by the Governing Board of St. John's College on 23.9.2008. One of the subjects discussed by the Governing Body of Sarah Tucker College and St. John's College, in the 154th and 230th meeting held on 22.9.2008 a 23.9.2008 in the above colleges, is as follows: "12. Bogus Appointments: (a) The Secretary reported that some unauthorised persons are available in the College campus claiming themselves as Lecturers of the College carrying bogus appointment Orders. This issue was discussed in detail by the board. John's College, in the 154th and 230th meeting held on 22.9.2008 a 23.9.2008 in the above colleges, is as follows: "12. Bogus Appointments: (a) The Secretary reported that some unauthorised persons are available in the College campus claiming themselves as Lecturers of the College carrying bogus appointment Orders. This issue was discussed in detail by the board. (b) The Bishop and the Chairman reported that he never presided over any appointment committee meeting during the last one year and further asserted that he never authorized any officer of the College or Diocese to conduct the appointments Committee in his absence. It was further confirmed by the Bishop that no proposal to convene the appointments committee meetings came to him for approval. (c) The Principal was asked to produce the appointments committee minutes book. She did so. It was found by the Governing Board that there was no entry about any meeting of the appointment committee after 28.8.2006. The Principal also reported that no interview was conducted and no such meeting was held to the best of her knowledge. The Principal reported that she has not signed any appointment Orders. On the Order seen by her did not have the signatures of the Chairman of the Appointment Committee. The Principal also expressed his inability in preventing these people from signing the Master's attendance register. She also reported that she did not sign in any of the appointment Orders of these 13 persons. (d) From the report of the Chairmman and that of the Principal it is clear that some bogus appointments have been made by following clandestine methods and these appointments have not been recorded in the minutes book of the appointments committee. (e) The Board resolved to set aside these 13 illegal appointments and requested the Chairman to direct the Principal of the College to vacate these unauthorised persons from the campus and to submit a compliance report to the Secretary of the College. (f) The Board authorised the secretary of the College to proceed further in nullifying these bogus appointments." 163. By letter, dated 24.10.2008, the Secretary and Correspondent of St. John's College, has called for explanation from the Principal, St. John's College for entertaining the unauthorised persons as teaching facility in the departments. (f) The Board authorised the secretary of the College to proceed further in nullifying these bogus appointments." 163. By letter, dated 24.10.2008, the Secretary and Correspondent of St. John's College, has called for explanation from the Principal, St. John's College for entertaining the unauthorised persons as teaching facility in the departments. In the said letter, the Secretary has alleged that 17 persons allowed by the Principal have not been appointed by the Appointment Committee constituted by the management and the credentials and qualification of the candidates have not been scrutinized by the selection committee. It is further stated that allowing the unauthorised persons to continue as teaching faculty in various departments amounts to serious dereliction of duty on his part. Likewise, a letter, dated 24.10.2008, has been sent to all the Heads of the Department of St. John's College to furnish the particulars of unauthorised persons allowed as teaching faculty and to offer their explanation as to whether they were involved in the Selection process of the candidates. In response to the same, the Heads of the Department have furnished the details and also denied their involvement in the process of selection of the Lecturers. Perusal of the entire materials on record shows that the whole process of appointment has been done in a most hurried and clandestinely manner with the collusion of then Secretary, Mr. ADCJ. Thinahar. There is no scrap of paper produced before this Court to show that any notification has been issued by the then secretary for filling up of vacancies in the colleges. No selection committee has been constituted by the Secretary as required under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Colleges (Regulation) Act or the Rules and regulations of Diocese. In the absence of proof that statutory Rules governing the appointments/promotions are followed, it is abundantly clear that the then Secretaries of the colleges/Correspondents/Managers in Office, in Order to extend the benefit of interim Orders obtained by fraud and suppression have made the appointments/promotions etc., to the post of Lecturers/Teachers etc. 164. Further, in Order to verify as to whether the appointments to the colleges have been made properly, letters have been sent by the Convener, Central Selection Committee, TDTA Colleges, Diocesan Office to those, who had gained appointments in the colleges. 164. Further, in Order to verify as to whether the appointments to the colleges have been made properly, letters have been sent by the Convener, Central Selection Committee, TDTA Colleges, Diocesan Office to those, who had gained appointments in the colleges. In response to the same, the appointees have sent Telegrams stating that the letters might have been sent to them by mistake/oversight because they have been working as Lecturers in the colleges, since 11.8.2008 as per the Orders issued by the Secretary of the said colleges and inasmuch as Manonmaniam Sundaram University has verified the educational qualifications and have submitted the certificates to the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education for sanction of salary, their names may be deleted from the Diocesan Waiting List. 165. Perusal of the appointment Order, dated 11.8.2008 issued by Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar reads that the lecturers are selected and appointed on regular basis in the colleges, with effect from 11.8.2008. There is no reference to any proceedings of the Selection Committee, constituted under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Colleges (Regulations) Rules. 166. Insofar as the schools are concerned, the Correspondentship of Mr. Daniel Sigamani Simeon and Mr. D. David Paulraj, in the schools were not extended by the Standing Committee on Higher Education nor by the Executive Committee, beyond 31.5.2008. They have also usurped the Office of the Correspondents/Managers of the respective schools by virtue of the interim Orders, granted by the Civil Court. 167. Perusal of the Order, dated 31.3.2007, issued by the Bishop to Rev.A.Jacob Chelliah, shows that his appointment as Manager of TDTA Primary and Middle Schools was for the period from 1.4.2007 to March 2008. Subsequently, due to administrative reasons, the said Rev.A.Jacob Chelliah, was relieved from the post of Manager of TDTA Primary and Middle Schools, by Order, dated 5.2.2008 of the Bishop in Tirunelveli. He has been further directed to handover the charges to Rev. A. Peter Devadoss and that the said Order was directed to be given effect from 6.2.2008. Consequently, another Order, dated 5.2.2008, has been issued to Rev.A.Peter Devadoss, appointing him as Manager, TDTA Primary and Middle Schools, from 6.2.2008. He has also been asked to take charge from Rev. A. Jacob Chellaih and report before the Bishop in Tirunelveli. A. Peter Devadoss and that the said Order was directed to be given effect from 6.2.2008. Consequently, another Order, dated 5.2.2008, has been issued to Rev.A.Peter Devadoss, appointing him as Manager, TDTA Primary and Middle Schools, from 6.2.2008. He has also been asked to take charge from Rev. A. Jacob Chellaih and report before the Bishop in Tirunelveli. On 6.2.2008, the Diocesan Treasurer of TDTA has addressed a letter to the Assistant/Additional Elementary Educational Officers of all the 21 Ranges in Tirunelveli District, stating that Bishop has appointed Rev.A.Peter Devadoss as Manager, TDTA Primary and Middle Schools with effect from 6.2.2008 and henceforth, he was authorised to sign all the documents pertaining to school matters. Pursuant to the Orders made by the Principal Bench of this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008, the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, in his proceedings, in R.C. No. 1546/A2 of 2008, dated 6.9.2008, has directed the Additional/Assistant Elementary Educational Officers, Tirunelveli District to take appropriate action on the proposals submitted by the Correspondents/Managers, appointed by the Diocesan administration headed by the Bishop and to pay teaching grant appointed to them. 168. It is also seen that Rev.A.Jacob Chelliah, the then Pastorate Chairman and Correspondent, TDTA Primary Schools, at Door No. 61, Ambai Road, Kulavanikapuram, Melapalayam post, Tirunelveli has addressed a letter to the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, regretting that he had acted contrary to the Church Rules and all the appointments/promotions/transfer etc., made by him on 11.8.2008 in the Primary and Middle Schools are not valid and that the educational authorities need not consider the appointment Orders. In response to the same, proceedings have also been issued by the District Elementary Educational Officer, in Rc. No. 1546/A2 of 2008, dated 13.10.2008, to all the Additional/Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli Ranges, to act upon the said letter. 169. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners/Teachers/Lecturers in W.A. No. 408 and 409 of 2008, dated 17.6.2008, is not applicable to the peculiar facts of the present case. First of all, in the above Writ Appeals, the Writ Petitioners therein were duly appointed by persons in the Management. Though there is no reference to the method of recruitment, selection procedure followed in appointing the petitioners therein, it could be safely concluded that the appointments have been duly made. First of all, in the above Writ Appeals, the Writ Petitioners therein were duly appointed by persons in the Management. Though there is no reference to the method of recruitment, selection procedure followed in appointing the petitioners therein, it could be safely concluded that the appointments have been duly made. In the case on hand, mere satisfaction of Educational Qualifications prescribed for the post of Teachers/Lecturers alone would not mean that the selection and appointment to the above said posts have been made in accordance with the statutory Rules under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulations) Act/Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Colleges (Regulations) Act and the Rules framed thereunder. There is a total violation of the statutory Rules in the matter of appointment/promotion etc., The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the management are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Illegality in the matter of filling up of the posts/re-employment etc., is per se evident from the record of proceedings. Therefore, when the very appointments are contrary to statutory Rules, the writ petitioners cannot claim advantage of the said Orders and seek for perpetuation of illegality. 170. Insofar as reliance placed on the Orders of this Court in C.R.P.(MD) Nos. 457 and 458 of 2008, dated 15.4.2008 is concerned, it is necessary to extract the Order rendered in Contempt Petition No. 13 of 2008. The contempt application has been filed for the alleged act of disobedience of the Order made in C.R.P.1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007. 170. Insofar as reliance placed on the Orders of this Court in C.R.P.(MD) Nos. 457 and 458 of 2008, dated 15.4.2008 is concerned, it is necessary to extract the Order rendered in Contempt Petition No. 13 of 2008. The contempt application has been filed for the alleged act of disobedience of the Order made in C.R.P.1784 of 2007, dated 14.12.2007. The fourth respondent therein has filed a suit in O.S. No. 194 of 2007 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Nangunaeri against the respondents 1 to 3 in the CRP., for the following reliefs: "(a) to declare that the elections held to the Pastorate Committees, Church Councils and Diocesan Council of 1st defendant Diocese held on 7.10.2007, 12.10.2007 a 20.10.2007 are null and void, non-est and not binding on the members of the 1st defendant Diocese; (b) to appoint a Commissioner/Election Committee to conduct fresh elections to the Pastorate Committees, Church Councils, Diocesan Council Executive Committees, Sub-Committees, Office of Lay Secretary, Clerical Secretary and Vice Chairman of 1st defendant Diocese; (c) to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3, their men or agents from conducting any elections, including election to the Executive Committee, Sub-Committees, Office of Lay Secretary, 'Vice Chairman and Clerical Secretary of the 1st defendant Diocese; (d) to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants I to 3, their men or gents from Giving effect to the new appointments of correspondents to St. John's College, Sarah Tucker College, Sfc.John's Hr. Section School, Chathedxal Hr.Section School, Florence Swalgson Deaf and Dumb Hr.Section School, Sarah Tucker Teacher Training Institute of the 1st defendant Diocese; (e) to direct the defendants to pay the costs of the suit and (f) to grant such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 171. On 30.11.2007, the learned District Munsif, who heard the I.A. No. 737 of 2007, vacated the interim stay granted on 6.11.2007, and gave the following directions. "1. There is no bar to conduct the next chain of election process which has to be completed and the elected representatives have to be sent to Synod, as per the schedule by permitting the undisputed elected; members (members from undisputed election of Pastorate Committees and Diocesan Council) to exercise their voting rights as per the provisions provided under the constitution of Diocese of Tirunelveli in further elections. The Respondents are directed to complete all the election process as early as possible. 2. In respect of the disputed election for the Pastorate Committees as well as for the Diocesan Council Member from Nanguneri, Parapadi, Donavour an other places and in respect of Diocesan member elections disputes, the petitioner has to submit representations before the election Tribunal of Diocese of Tirunelveli with all the relevant material evidence referred in the affidavit within one month from the date of the Order passed by this Court, the respondent should consider the representation of the petitioner' within two weeks 'from the date of receipt of the representation and pass a speaking Order based on the merits of the representation placed before it. 3. In respect of the alleged violations about the election of Diocesan workers in various places, the petitioner should raise their, dispute before the election Tribunal of the Diocese within one month from the date of this Order and the election Tribunal has to decide the violations after hearing all the concerned parties and pass a speaking Order. 4. In respect of six newly appointed Correspondents and employees under the Diocesan have no right to participate in the present election process and they can cast their voting right, if any, for the election coming from the next turn. 5. The above such direction is not applicable to cases pending in any other Courts in respect of election disputes." 172. The learned single Judge of this Court, by Order dated 14.12.2007, allowed the revision petition by observing as follows: "In this case also, the learned District Munsif had neither dismissed the petition nor granted an Order of injunction. But on the other hand, he had given certain directions. In view of the facts noted above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Munsif had not passed the Order under challenge as per Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Consequently, the Order challenged in this revision is set aside and the revision is allowed. Both the parties' can approach the trial Court. The learned Judge can consider the case of the parties without in any way being influenced by anything said in this Order." 173. Therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Consequently, the Order challenged in this revision is set aside and the revision is allowed. Both the parties' can approach the trial Court. The learned Judge can consider the case of the parties without in any way being influenced by anything said in this Order." 173. It is the case of the Contempt Petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 had conducted elections and church council meeting in disobedience of the Orders made in the Civil Revision Petition and therefore, they have disobeyed the Orders of the Court. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the contempt application submitted that when the Order, dated 14.12.2007 passed in the Civil Revision Petition has neither directed the respondents to do something nor prevented them from doing something, mere holding of election on 21.12.2007, by the respondents cannot be construed to be intentionally and willfully disobeyed the Orders of this Court. After considering the rival submissions and the observations, directions made by the learned Judge, who disposed of the Civil Revision Petitions, this Court, in the above Contempt Application No. 13 of 2008, observed that the learned Judge, who disposed of the Civil Revision Petition was not inclined to interfere with the election process, as it has already commenced and therefore, directed the parties to approach the Trial Court and seek appropriate remedy. At Paragraph 27 of the Order made in the Contempt Application, this Court held that "it cannot be said that the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the Order dated 14.12.2007 passed in the Civil Revision Petition. As right contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no clear cut direction prohibiting the respondents from further proceedings with the election process. This Court cannot interpret the Order passed in the Civil Revision Petition as his sought to be done by the learned senior counsel. It is open to both parties, as directed the learned Judge, to approach the trial Court and seek appropriate remedy. With the above observations, the Contempt Petition has been dismissed." 174. It is represented that the Order made in the Contempt Application has not been placed before the learned single Judge, who disposed of C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 457 and 458 of 2009, which was filed to set aside an Order made in I.A. Nos. With the above observations, the Contempt Petition has been dismissed." 174. It is represented that the Order made in the Contempt Application has not been placed before the learned single Judge, who disposed of C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 457 and 458 of 2009, which was filed to set aside an Order made in I.A. Nos. 1531 of 2008 in I.A. No. 630 of 2008 in O.S.NO.351 of 2008 filed to implead the revision petitioner therein as second respondent/second defendant in I.A. No. 630 of 2008 in O.S. No. 351 of 2008. It could be seen from the totality of the facts culled out from various proceedings, Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar, and Others have claimed that they are the duly elected Office Bearers of various posts in the Diocese, whereas, the Teachers represented by the learned counsel, Mr. P.Vallinayagam, claim that the position as on 17.12.2007, has to be considered for the purpose of maintaining the status quo and therefore, the appointments are valid. As this Court has already taken the view that the teachers cannot step into the shoes of the aspirants for the posts in the Diocese and attempt to seek for a review of judgment of the Principal Bench in C.R.P. Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008, dated 18.8.2008, the contention of the teachers/lecturers that in the absence of any positive directions made by the Principal Bench, nullifying the appointments, the Orders of termination/reversion/cancellation of appointment cannot be countenanced in view of the discussions made earlier, holding that the appointments/promotions /Order of re-employment etc., as illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions and the Rules made thereunder and also the procedure followed by the Diosece, while making appointments/promotions. 175. In view of the above, the appointments made to the post of Lecturers in Mathematics in Sarah Tucker College, and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, impugned in the W.P. No. 10131 to 10133 of 2009 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appointments are set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10131 to 10133 of 2009 are allowed. 176. In view of the above, the appointments made to the post of Lecturers in Mathematics in Sarah Tucker College, and St. John's College, Palayamkottai, impugned in the W.P. No. 10131 to 10133 of 2009 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appointments are set aside. The Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10131 to 10133 of 2009 are allowed. 176. The reference to Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1965 and the contention that no act or proceedings of the registered society or any committee or of any officer of the society shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground, (a) of any vacancy or defect in the organization or the formation of the general body or constitution of the committee (b) of any defect or irregularity in the election or appointment of a member of the committee or an officer of the society ; (c) of any defect or irregularity in such act or proceedings not affect the merits of the case, also cannot be accepted for the reasons that the Principal Bench of this Court, has already taken the view that the interim Orders obtained by the plaintiffs therein were by adopting fraudulent methods, suppression of fact and forum shopping. The teachers/lecturers cannot derive any benefit out of fraudulent acts, when the appointments/promotions in educational institutions are illegal and contrary to statutory Rules. What is contemplated under Section 55 of the Tamil Societies Registration Act, 1955 is only a defect or irregularity in the election or appointment of a member of the committee or an officer of the society, formation of the general body or constitution of the committee. The said Section does not speak about illegality or fraud in usurping to various posts of any registered society. It is well settled that irregularities can be cured but an illegal act cannot be cured even at a later point of time. In such view of the matter, the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 8012, 8017, 8284 and 8285 of 2008 are untenable. 177. Insofar as W.P.(MD) Nos. 10653 of 2008 and 726 of 2009, filed by the associations, the writ petitions are not maintainable as the Association has no locus standi to seek for an omnibus Orders from this Court. 177. Insofar as W.P.(MD) Nos. 10653 of 2008 and 726 of 2009, filed by the associations, the writ petitions are not maintainable as the Association has no locus standi to seek for an omnibus Orders from this Court. The persons aggrieved by the Orders of the Management have already taken up their individual cause and filed separate writ petitions before this Court. The association has no right or locus standi to question the same indirectly in the above writ petitions. The relief of Mandamus directing the Educational Authorities of the schools/colleges to issue suitable directions to the Management not to affect the conditions of service of the members of the petitioner's association is virtually, in the form of a Prohibition restraining the School/College authorities of the Management from taking corrective measures in the institutions. The claim of the Association is wholly untenable and it is yet another attempt through the association to perpetuate the illegalities committed by the erstwhile Secretaries/Correspondents/Managers of the educational institutions. Pleading further disclose that TDTA employees Welfare Association and Dr.Ranjan Sundara Kumar have already filed a suit in O.S. No. 62 of 2008 before the District Court, Tirunelveli to declare the elections to the Church Council of the Diocese of Tirunelveli and to other offices as null and void and also sought for a mandatory injunction against the first respondent therein to announce fresh election to the church council and diocesan council. Now that the elections to the various offices in the Diocese are said to have been over on 4.12.2007 and 21.12.2007, the association has once again come up with the present writ petitions, questioning the authority of the persons in-charge of administration indirectly by filing the writ petitions. What is indirectly sought for in this Writ Petition is that the Management should be restrained from taking any action of terminating/cancelling the illegal appointments/promotions etc., Such prayer cannot be granted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 2001-I-LLJ-322. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Management that there is nothing wrong in notifying the vacancy of Principal in the Colleges/schools calling for applications from eligible candidates for filling up of posts in Colleges/Schools. Even the members of the petitioners association can apply for the posts. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to find any arbitrary or illegality in the notification issued by the competent authorities. Even the members of the petitioners association can apply for the posts. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to find any arbitrary or illegality in the notification issued by the competent authorities. Hence, both the writ petitions are devoid of any merits and accordingly, dismissed. 178. In the result, this Court is of the considered view that the illegality committed by the Secretaries/Correspondents/Managers in the matter of appointment/promotion/re-employment etc., in colleges and schools run by the Diocese, cannot be allowed to the perpetuate and hence, all the writ petitions filed by the Teachers/Lecturers, who have gained illegal appointments/promotions/Orders of re-employment are dismissed. 179. In fine, (i) W.P. No. 89 of 2009 is de-linked; (2) W.P. Nos. 10131 to 10133 of 2008 are allowed; (3) W.P. No. 8014 of 2008 is partly allowed; (4) W.P. Nos. 7866, 7938, 8012, 8017, 8051, 8052, 8121 8131, 8132, 8284, 8285, 8880, 9604, 10618, 10653, 10675 to 10680, 10698 to 10701, 10724, 10725, 10732 to 10738, 10859, 10914 and 10196 of 2008 and W.P. (MD) Nos. 726, 2589 to 2591, 2503 and 3205 of 2009 are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. Petitions dismissed.