Ramachandran, J.

In this batch of writ appeals, the Government challenges the judgments passed in different writ petitions, whereby the claims put in by the petitioners for regularization as Higher Secondary School Teachers were held as admissible, relying on principles laid down by a set of earlier cases. Writ Appeal No.2323 of 2004 could be considered as a representative case and it arises from W.P.(C).No.21983 of 2003 and connected cases. Operative portion of the judgment runs as following:

“In view of the factual and legal position as stated above these writ petitions are allowed directing the second respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioners for all purposes and grant their eligible benefits, in case the only impediment was that the petitioners had not obtained B.Ed degree from a University approved by the Universities in Kerala”.

Excepting W.A.No.1829 of 2005, in all other cases the objectionable feature pointed out by the State was that the respective teachers, who secured appointments, did not have recognised B.Ed degree qualification, since the incumbent had obtained such degree before their appointment, by undergoing correspondence course.

2. As appointments were being made by the aided school managements after following the procedure prescribed, according to the Government, sufficient care had been taken by the educational authorities, so as to ensure that unqualified teachers, who were conferred with appointments, did not automatically get the benefit of appointments. It is pointed out that the approval orders passed by the educational authorities were conditional. Referring to Ext.P1 in the writ petition, Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, learned Government Pleader points out that the provisional appointments were approved as purely on a temporary/provisional basis. A rider had also been incorporated to the effect that the approval of the appointments had been issued on the declaration furnished by the Manager that he has acted as per rules. The Manager was found specifically and solely responsible for any irregularities, if noticed in future, and the department was not to be liable for any loss or damage caused to any incumbents consequent to such appointments. In all cases, finding that there was deficiency in the B.Ed. degree held by them, teachers were informed in writing, by incorporating a condition, that they are to pass B.Ed examination within 5 years from the date of appointment. The probation of the teachers were to be declared only after the acquisition of B.Ed. degree.

3. There is no claim by the petitioners that they had subsequently acquired the qualification. Their plea is that the conditions were unreasonable, and the same have been found acceptance now. The learned Government Pleader points out that notwithstanding the safeguards prescribed, the direction for regularization of the appointments, which obliged the Government to confer on petitioners service benefits, was wholly illegal and irregular, and a premium has been paid to irregular conduct of the managements. In short, the suggestion was that the petitioners had no clean hands for conferment of a gift of approval or for contending that they were entitled to be recognised as eligible persons to be validly appointed. Therefore the judgments require interference.

4. In the course of the arguments, the learned Government Pleader had adverted to a number of Government Orders, which according to her, were specific, in that the teachers require to possess B.Ed degree as recognised by Universities in Kerala and especially had invited our attention to the orders passed on 27-06-1990, 13-05-1999, 19-05-2000 etc. Advertence was also made to the requirement for obtaining the SET qualification with reference to the requirement made obligatory by order dated 30.12.1999. Of course, Chapter XXXII had been introduced to the Kerala Education Rules only later and the special rules had come to occupy the field from 09-01-2001. Till such time the appo