JUDGMENT : 1. Whether trustees elected midterm, to fill up the vacancies caused by resignation, death or retirement, are liable to vacate the office on completion of the unexpired period, notwithstanding the scheme providing fixed tenure of five years from the date of election for the trustees elected to the Pachiyappa’s Trust, is the core question that arises for consideration in these applications filed by the Association of Teachers of Pachiyappa’s Trust Colleges. 2. These four applications are at the instance of joint action committee of AUT Unit of Pachayappa’s trust colleges and the principal prayer is to declare that the Trustees have no right to continue in office beyond 8 October 2014. The applicant, by way of the applications for interim injunction, seek to restrain the trustees from making appointments to various teaching and non teaching posts. The prayer in A.No.779 of 2015 is for appointment of an interim Administrator to manage the trust and hold elections to elect the Trustees. The constitution of trust:- 3. The Pachayappa’s Trust is administered in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras (Equity Side) on 12 February 1909, 19 July 1920 and 14 December 1920 and modified by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 16 July 1976, 4 January 2007 and 24 September 2008. The scheme was framed taking into account the stipulations made in the last will and testament of late Thiru. Pachaiyappa Mudaliar. As per the scheme, the Board of Trustees shall have to be constituted with 9 members. Out of nine, two members have to be elected by the Hindu Members of the Senate of the University of Madras, three members by Graduates/Research Scholars from all the six colleges run by the Trust, two members by the Pachyiappa’s College Council and two members from amongst the electoral college consisting of all the approved teachers from the colleges managed by the Pachyiappa’s trust. It is the prerogative of the respective electoral college to elect the trustees from its electoral college/constituency. The tenure of office is five years from the date of election. Any vacancy in the Board caused by death, resignation or retirement of any member shall have to be filled up by the respective electoral college. Background of this litigation:- 4. The election to elect 9 Trustees was held on 29 September 2009. The tenure of office is five years from the date of election. Any vacancy in the Board caused by death, resignation or retirement of any member shall have to be filled up by the respective electoral college. Background of this litigation:- 4. The election to elect 9 Trustees was held on 29 September 2009. The elected trustees assumed office on 9 October 2009. Subsequently, five trustees resigned their trusteeship on different dates from 14 January 2011 to 29 August 2012. 5. The remaining four trustees filed Application No.4063 of 2012 before this Court to permit them to conduct the election for filling up the vacancies. The secretary of the trust Board filed A.No.4129 of 2012 for appointing an interim Administrator to manage the trust. The applicant herein was made a party to those proceedings pursuant to the application filed for impleading. 6. This Court passed a common order dated 16 October 2012 in A.Nos. 4062, 4129, 4226, 4496, 4497 and 4498 of 2012 whereby and where under Thiru.T.N. Seshan I.A.S., (Retd.) was appointed as the interim Administrator. The interim Administrator was directed to conduct election for filling up the five vacancies as per Clause 11 of the modified Scheme. 7. The Interim Administrator conducted the election on 26 May 2013 and declared the results on 26 May 2013. The respondents 3 to 7 were elected as trustees. The Returning Officer officially declared them as duly elected, to hold office for a period of five years from the date of election. The election was confirmed by thus Court. 8. Since the trustees elected to fill up the vacancies continued in office beyond the original term, the applicant has come with the Application in A.No.778 of 2015, for declaration that respondents 3 to 7 have no right to continue beyond 8 October 2014. 9. It is the contention of the applicant that the Trustees elected to fill up the vacancy can continue only up to the original term which expired on 8 October 2014. In short, it is the case of the applicant that trustees elected to fill up the vacancy can hold office only for the unexpired period taking into account the original term. The applicant alleged that the Trustees are taking hectic steps to fill up the vacancies without resorting to a transparent procedure. In short, it is the case of the applicant that trustees elected to fill up the vacancy can hold office only for the unexpired period taking into account the original term. The applicant alleged that the Trustees are taking hectic steps to fill up the vacancies without resorting to a transparent procedure. The applicant therefore seeks interlocutory orders to restrain the newly elected trustees from functioning, injunct them from making appointments and also for appointing an interim Administrator to manage the affairs of the Trust and hold fresh election to the Trust Board. 10. The Member Secretary of Pachiyappa’s Trust filed a common counter affidavit indicating the background facts. According to the Trust, this Court, as per order in A.No.2178 and 2179 of 2013 and O.A. No.290 of 2013, permitted the Election Officer to declare the election conducted to hold office for five years. This Court by order dated 28 June 2013, accepted the report filed by the Election Officer. It was contended that the tenure of office is five years from date of election and not otherwise. The Secretary denied the allegation regarding appointment of teachers and other staff by unfair method. According to the Trust Board, Selection Committee constituted as per the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act is given the task of selection and as such, the allegation regarding vested interest has no basis. The submissions:- 11. The learned counsel for the applicant by placing reliance on the scheme decree contended that the decree is very clear that any vacancy to the office of Trustee shall be filled up from the respective electoral college, whose elected representative ceased to hold office. According to the learned counsel, Clause 11 of the Scheme Decree should be interpreted in the light of other provisions, which would make the position very clear that the trustees who were elected midterm would hold office only for the remaining period. The learned counsel with reference to the earlier orders passed by this Court, confirming the election of respondents 3 to 7 for five year term, submitted that there was no adjudication on merits and as such, the order would not bar the applicant from agitating the very same issue subsequently. It was further contended that the respondents 3 to 7 are in the process of filling up the entire vacancies without adopting a fair method. It was further contended that the respondents 3 to 7 are in the process of filling up the entire vacancies without adopting a fair method. The learned counsel therefore prayed for an order restraining respondents 3 to 7 for functioning as trustees, besides appointment of an interim administrator. 12. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the first respondent contended that the Election Officer issued a notification calling for nominations, indicating the tenure. Even though a challenge was made to the notification, this Court was not inclined to entertain it and the same is evident from the order passed by the learned Judge, confirming the election of trustees. The learned Advocate General fairly submitted that even he entertained a doubt originally as to whether the newly elected trustees could continue for five years. However, the doubt was clarified subsequently by referring to clause 11 of the scheme decree. The learned Advocate General contended that the election was conducted with a clear understanding that the trustees would continue for a period of five years from the date of election. The election was approved by this Court. There is no question of re-agitating the very same issue at a later point of time. The learned Advocate General by placing reliance on Clause 11(J) of the Scheme Decree submitted that the explanation would apply only in case of cessation of trusteeship and the said provision will not be applicable to a vacancy caused by resignation or retirement. 13. The learned senior counsel for the Pachiyappa’s Trust supported the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the very same issue was raised earlier in a proceeding in which the applicant was a party, and ultimately, the memo submitted by the Election Officer indicating the term of the newly elected trustees was approved by this Court. The learned counsel took me through various provisions of the approved scheme and contended that the trustees elected to fill up the vacancy are entitled to continue for five years from the date of their election. 14. The question posed by the applicant with regard to the term of office of the Trustees elected to fill up the vacancy has to be decided in the light of the Scheme Decree and earlier orders passed by this Court. The Relevant provisions of the Scheme:- 15. 14. The question posed by the applicant with regard to the term of office of the Trustees elected to fill up the vacancy has to be decided in the light of the Scheme Decree and earlier orders passed by this Court. The Relevant provisions of the Scheme:- 15. Clause 11 of the Scheme deals with the constitution of the Board. Clause 11(D) provides that any vacancy to the Board caused by death, resignation or retirement shall be filled up by the electoral body which originally elected the concerned trustee. Clause 11(H) provides that every Trustee appointed under the scheme shall hold office for five years to be computed from the date of election. 16. Clause 11(J) provides for cessation of trusteeship and filling up of vacancies. The litigious journey to this Court:- 17(i) This Court passed a common order dated 16 October 2012, appointing an interim Administrator to hold election, as per Clause 11 of the scheme. 17(ii) The Election Officer issued a notification calling for nominations to elect five trustees pursuant to the order dated 16 October 2012 in A. Nos. 4062, 4129, 4220, 4497 and 4498 of 2012. The tenure of office was indicated in the notification as five years from the date of election which is a verbatim reproduction of the modified scheme. 17(iii) There were two applications before this Court filed by R. Nagarajan, and M. Arumugam in A. Nos. 2178 of 2o13 and 2179 of 2013. The application in A.No.2178 of 2013 was primarily for the purpose of declaring the election notification as inappropriate. In view of the five year tenure shown in the notification. In paragraph 5 of the order dated 23 May 2013, the learned Judge recorded the contention taken by the applicant’s therein that five year period was wrongly shown in the notification instead of mentioning the remaining term. The learned Judge permitted the Election Officer to complete the election process. However, he was restrained from declaring the results. The present applicant was a party to the said proceedings. 17(iv) The application in A.No.2178 of 2013 was dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 26 June 2013. The Election Officer was directed to declare the results. 17(v) Thereafter, the Election Officer declared the results indicating that the elected trustees are entitled to be in office for five years from the date of their election. 17(iv) The application in A.No.2178 of 2013 was dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 26 June 2013. The Election Officer was directed to declare the results. 17(v) Thereafter, the Election Officer declared the results indicating that the elected trustees are entitled to be in office for five years from the date of their election. 17(vi) The learned Judge as per order dated 28 June 2013 approved the election of respondents 3 to 7 by accepting the report submitted by the Chief Election officer. The learned Judge taking note of the conduct of election, declaration of results, and confirmation by the Court discharged the interim administrator. The order was passed against in the presence of the applicant. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of the explanation appended to Clause 11(J) of the Scheme Decree has absolutely no merits. The explanation only shows that the vacancy would be filled up from among the respective electorates. Even for a fresh election for the entire term of five years, trustees would be elected only by the respective electorates. Therefore, no other meaning could be given to the explanation appended to sub clause (J) of Clause 11 of the Scheme Decree. Applicability of the principles of Res Judicate:- 19. The applicant was a party to all the earlier proceedings referred to above. The order dismissing the application to correct the tenure was passed in the presence of the applicant. The applicant even after knowing the intention of the applicants in A.No.2178 of 2013 to withdraw the application, failed to take steps to transpose them as applicant. The subsequent order accepting the report filed by the Election Officer and confirming the election of trustees, elected for five years from the date of election, was also passed in the presence of the applicant. The applicant has not opposed the prayer to confirm the election. The applicant is therefore legally not entitled at this point of time to contend that respondents 3 to 7 are not entitled to continue in office for the full term of five years. The present application in A.No.778 of 2015 is therefore clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. Settled law:- 20. The Supreme Court in the City Municipal Council Bhalki, by its Chief Officer, vs. Guruppa (D) by Lrs. The present application in A.No.778 of 2015 is therefore clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. Settled law:- 20. The Supreme Court in the City Municipal Council Bhalki, by its Chief Officer, vs. Guruppa (D) by Lrs. & Anr., 2015(10) Scale 297 indicated the scope and ambit of Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, in the following words:- The Principles of res judicata is a need of any judicial system, that is, to give finality to the judicial decisions of the disputes between parties. It also aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties of the same subject matter of the lis. An issue which was directly and substantially involved in a former suit between the same parties, and has been decided and has attained finality cannot be re-agitated before the Courts again by instituting suit or proceeding by the same parties on the same subject matter of earlier lis. 21. The Supreme Court in Hope Plantations Ltd. vs. Taluk Lank Board, peermade & Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 590, while explaining the scope of finality of the judgment, indicated that the public policy demands that the decisions pronounced by Courts of competent jurisdiction must be final. The Supreme Court said:- Rule of res judicata prevents the parties to a judicial determination from litigating the same question over again even though the determination may even be demonstratedly wrong. When the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are stopped from questioning it. 22. The Supreme Court in Mohanlal Goenka vs. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee, AIR 1953 SC 65 , observed that even an erroneous decision would operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court said:- “There is ample authority for the proposition that even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as “res judicata” between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operate as res judicata” 22(a) The learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was no judicial determination in the earlier round of litigation with respect to the tenure and as such, those orders would not operate as resjudicata. (b) I am not in a position to agree to the said submission. In the earlier round of litigation, initially, the applicants therein challenged the election notification, primarily on the ground that it was a defective notification. (b) I am not in a position to agree to the said submission. In the earlier round of litigation, initially, the applicants therein challenged the election notification, primarily on the ground that it was a defective notification. The substantial ground taken in the said application relates to the tenure. The applicant was a party to the proceeding. The application was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, after declaration, the Election officer produced the list of elected trustees before this Court. The list was accompanied by the certificates given to the elected trustees indicating that they would hold office for a period of five years from the date of election. The learned Single Judge confirmed the election. Even in the said proceeding, the petitioner was a party. The order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the election of respondents 3 to 7 and the five year period of their trusteeship has become final. The applicant, for reasons best known, failed to challenge the order of confirmation before the appropriate forum. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28 June 2013 in O.A. No. 167 and 181 of 2013 and A. Nos. 1371, 1372, 1374 and 1633 of 2013, would therefore attract the principles of res judicata. Vacancy caused by retirement – implication:- 24. Even otherwise there is no merit in the contention that the trustees, who were elected to fill up the vacancies are entitled to continue only for the unexpired period. The language of Clause 11(D) supports the view that the trustees elected to fill up the vacancy would get a fresh term of five years. 25. Clause 11(D) reads thus: “Any vacancy on the Board, caused either by death, resignation or retirement of any member thereof, appointed under the amended scheme, shall be filled up by the electoral body which originally elected. (Emphasis supplied) 26. In case the trustees elected to fill up the vacancy are entitled to continue only for the remaining period, all the trustees would quit the office simultaneously. There would not be any retirement, causing vacancy midterm in such cases. The word ‘retirement’ implies that trustees would quit office on completion of five years in office, taking into account the date of election. The usage of the word “retirement” is therefore indicative of the fact that trustees elected on different dates would retire on different dates, after completing the term of five years. The word ‘retirement’ implies that trustees would quit office on completion of five years in office, taking into account the date of election. The usage of the word “retirement” is therefore indicative of the fact that trustees elected on different dates would retire on different dates, after completing the term of five years. If it is a retirement by completing the term, uniformly by all the trustees, there is no need to mention specifically that vacancy caused on the Board by retirement shall be filled up by the very same Electoral body. 27. In case the trustees elected on 9 October 2009 and the five trustees elected on 26 June 2013 to fill up the vacancies together would retire on 8 October 2014, there is no question of filling up the vacancy by retirement. It will be a fresh election to elect nine trustees to hold office from the date of election after completing the five year term on 8 October 2014. Therefore, it is clear that even a trustee elected to fill up the vacancy is entitled to be in office for five years from the date of election. The election notification was correctly issued in terms of clause 11 of the amended scheme. I therefore, reject the contention that the respondents 3 to 7 are not entitled to continue in office for the full term of five years from the date of their election. Appointment of interim administrator:- 28. The prayer for appointment of interim administrator is under the premise that the term of newly elected trustees expired on 8 October 2014. Now that I have arrived at a finding that the trustees elected pursuant to the order of this Court are entitled to be in office for five years from the date of election, there is no question of appointing an interim administrator to manage the affairs of the trust and hold election to the Board of Trustees. I therefore, do not find any merit in the application in A.No.779 of 2015. Injunctive relief:- Challenge to the recruitment process:- 29. The applicant filed the other two applications viz., A.No.1260 of 2015 and A.No.8013 of 2015 to restrain the Trust Board from proceeding with the selection process for appointment of Assistant Professors, Librarians and non teaching staff. 30. I therefore, do not find any merit in the application in A.No.779 of 2015. Injunctive relief:- Challenge to the recruitment process:- 29. The applicant filed the other two applications viz., A.No.1260 of 2015 and A.No.8013 of 2015 to restrain the Trust Board from proceeding with the selection process for appointment of Assistant Professors, Librarians and non teaching staff. 30. Even as per the applicant, the notification calling for application for appointments was published in leading newspapers like The Hindu and Daily Thanthi. The applicant challenges the notification on the ground that selection process would not be fair and transparent and that the trustees are not entitled to hold office. The Trust in its counter affidavit made it clear that selection committee constituted in accordance with the University Grants Commission Norms and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulations Act would conduct the selection. The Selection Committee consists of two nominees of the Vice Chancellor of Madras University, one being a subject expert, two nominees of Thirvalluvar University, one being a subject expert, two subject experts nominated by Chair Person (out of the panel of University of Madras, Thiruvalluvar University), Principal of the concerned college and Heads of Department of the concerned subject. The mode and method of selection were also indicated in the notification. Such being the position, it cannot be said that the selection would be a farce and it would not be fair or transparent. I am therefore of the view that the applicant miserably failed to make out a case for interlocutory injunction. Overall conclusion:- 31. In view of the scheme fixing the tenure of office of trustees, I hold that trustees elected to the Trust Board of Panchaiyappa’s Trust are entitled to continue in office for a period of five years from the date of election without any liability to vacate the office on completion of the unexpired period. 32. For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the applications without any liability to pay cost.