Judgment :- Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16365/2008 has sought for quashing the impugned order found at Annexure G dated 28th October 2008 issued by second respondent in so far as it relates to appointing fourth respondent as the Chairman of the managing committee of third respondent. 2. Petitioners in W.P. No. 14573/2008 & 16199-201/2009 have sought for quashing the impugned order found at Annexure U dated 11th November 2008 passed by the second respondent. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are that, one Sri. M. Krishnappa had filed Writ Petition No. 17068/2007 and the said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 24th July 2008. This Court allowed the said petition and set aside the order dated 4th October 2007 at Annexure A therein and directed the Government to take fresh proceedings forthwith in accordance with law for appointment of the Managing Committee for the third respondent – institution and in selecting the Committee Members. Further, it was observed that, the mistake committed therein shall not be repeated over and again and that the entire exercise shall have to be done within a period of three months from the date of the said order. Assailing the correctness of the said order dated 24th July 2008 passed in W.P. No. 17068/2007, one Sri.B.G. Ramesh (petitioner in first petition and first petitioner in second petition) and three others filed Writ Appeal No. 1209/2008. The said matter had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 11th August 2008 and the writ appeal filed by the said persons was disposed of upholding the appointment of petitioner in both petitions as Managing Committee members and directed the Government to expedite the proceedings relating to the appointment of the remaining members and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Instead of considering the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the competent authority has proceeded to pass the impugned orders as referred above, appointing the fourth respondent as the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the third respondent – Institution without following due procedure envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Instead of considering the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the competent authority has proceeded to pass the impugned orders as referred above, appointing the fourth respondent as the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the third respondent – Institution without following due procedure envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. It is significant to note that, since the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has not been questioned subsequently, the same has attained finality and therefore the authorities are bound to proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and the directions issued by the Division Bench in the writ appeal referred above. On the other hand, the competent authority has proceeded to appoint the fourth respondent as the Chairman of third respondent by exceeding the jurisdiction and terminated the appointment of the petitioners in both petitions as Managing Committee members. Therefore, petitioners are constrained to redress their grievance before this Court seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners in both petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 5. After careful perusal of the impugned orders passed by the jurisdictional competent authority it is manifest on the face of the said orders that, the competent authority, has committed a grave error and material irregularity in proceeding to pass the impugned orders resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. It is significant to note that, in spite of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as referred above, the appointment of the petitioners in these petitions as Managing Committee members of the third respondent Institution have been safeguarded by the Division Bench by stating that, the order of the learned Single Judge shall not affect the appellants (petitioner in these petitions) in whatsoever manner. If that was the case, then the only option left for the authority was to appoint the remaining members of the Managing Committee and thereafter proceed to conduct election of the Chairman as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules by issuing the Notification, calling the members of the Managing Committee to elect the Chairman. If that was the case, then the only option left for the authority was to appoint the remaining members of the Managing Committee and thereafter proceed to conduct election of the Chairman as provided under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules by issuing the Notification, calling the members of the Managing Committee to elect the Chairman. This exercise appears to have not been done and on the contrary, the said authority has straightaway proceeded to nominate the fourth respondent as Chairman of the Managing Committee which is impermissible and contrary to the procedure envisaged under Act and such orders cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside at the threshold. 6. Taking into consideration all these relevant factors, without going into further merits of the case, these petitioner are disposed of with the following directions: i) The writ petitions filed by petitioners are allowed in part. ii) The impugned order dated 28th October 2008 bearing No. ADM. 6 CR. 29/2008-09 passed by the second respondent in so far as it relates to appointment of the fourth respondent as Chairman of the Managing Committee of the third respondent (in W.O. No. 16365/2008) and the order dated 11th November 2008 bearing No. ADM. 6/CR/33/2008-09 passed by the second respondent (in W.P. Nos. 14573/2008 & 16199-201/2009) are hereby set aside. iii) Matter stands remitted back to second respondent to proceed further and to take appropriate decision in strict compliance of the relevant provision of the Act and Rules relating to appointing of Chairman to the Committee of Management of the third respondent – Institution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from today. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 in first petition and respondents 1 to 3 in second writ petitions within three weeks from today.