The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and the court's discretion in applying these principles based on the specific circumstances of each case.

ORDER

C.A. Nos.10478-10498/ 2011 & C.A. Nos.2353-2355/2017

1. The facts lie in a narrow compass. There was election dispute with respect to the Diocese elections which has effect on constitution of the School and College Management Committees. Diocese elections was held on 21.12.2007 and result was also notified on said date.

2. OS No.2898/2008 was filed for declaring that plaintiff as duly elected. The Court had initially passed an order of status quo on 30.4.2008, which was modified as one of the status quo ante prior to 21.12.2007 vide order dated 21.7.2008. The interim orders dated 30.4.2008 and 21.7.2008 were questioned by way of filing the revision petitions in the High Court of Madras. The High Court passed the order dated 18.8.2008 to the following effect:

"49. The person who comes to Court, must come with clean hands for seeking any relief. But, the respondent/plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts, adopted method of forum shopping and have played fraud on the Court below, apart from non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit. Playing fraud on the Court is highly condemnable, since the same is against administration of justice. As there is substantial materials available on record to show that the respondents/plaintiffs have played fraud on the Court below and obtained the order of status quo ante, they cannot be permitted to administer the institutions, pending disposal of the suit.

50. The revision petitioners in C.R.P. (PD) Nos.2527 to 2529 of 2008, the Diocese of Tirunelveli (CSI) is admittedly headed by its Bishop at Tirunelveli and he is the Chief Election Officer, as per Chapter X of the Constitution of Diocese of Tirunelveli. As such, he has produced a certified copy of the Minutes maintained by the Diocese of Tirunelveli (CSI), wherein the names of the office bearers elected have been stated. It is seen that the revision petitioners in C.R.P. (PD) Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008 are also stated as elected office bearers of the Diocese in the said document. Though the same cannot be taken as gospel truth by this Court, I am of the view that Exhibit R1 cannot be construed as a fabricated document and there is no substantial materials to show that the second defendant has played any fraud on the Court, hence, this Court is of the considered view to permit the Diocese of Tirunelveli, represented by its Bishop, the revision petitioner in C.R.P. (PD) Nos.2527 to 2529 of 2008 to continue the administration with the officer bearers, including the revision petitioners in C.R.P. (PD) Nos.2601 and 2602 of 2008, holding their respective posts, as per Exhibit R1, till the disposal of the suit.

Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No order as to costs.

(emphasis supplied)

3. However, plaintiff taking advantage of the order of status quo ante passed by the Civil Court on 21.7.2008 and earlier order of 30.4.2008 made the appointments of certain incumbents as Lecturers on 11.8.2008. However, the orders dated 30.4.2008 and 21.7.2008 were set aside by the High Court a week later by aforesaid order. The revision was pending as on the date on which the appointments had been made on 11.8.2008. Surprisingly, the appointments were got approved by the University on 12.8.2008 in undue haste. The termination order was passed by the newly elected Committee on 17.11.2008 after interim order had been vacated. It is not in dispute that the Civil Suit that was filed has ultimately been dismissed and election held on 21.11.2007, for the period it was held is not in question any more.

4. The persons who were removed as Lecturers on 17.11.2008 filed writ applications before the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.5.2009. However, in the writ appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside as well as the order of termination and direction has been given to grant hearing as the order was violative of principles of natural justice.

5. We have heard the learned couns