Manjula Chellur, C.J.

1. All the Writ Appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 06.10.2009 in W.P.(C)No.31862/2008 and other connected cases. All the appellants before us were respondents in the respective writ petitions.

2. Respondents/writ petitioners approached this Court challenging the amendment brought to the Special Rules for Kerala Technical Education Services (Amendment) of 2010 by inserting Rule 6A, contending that it is without legislative competence, therefore, unconstitutional. The stand of the writ petitioners was, State of Kerala having availed financial assistance offered by the Central Government in implementing the All India Council for Technical Education (for short 'AICTE') Scheme failed to comply with the amendment of the Special Rules as prescribed by the norms of AICTE and further diluted the qualification by inserting Rule 6A. Therefore, the said rule deserves to be quashed.

3. The amendment challenged in the writ petition is Rule 6A which provides exemption from obtaining Ph.D for those Lecturers who were: (1) appointed on or before 27th March, 1990 and (2) have completed 45 years of age on the date of notification i.e. 27.03.1990 for the post of Professors etc. So far as those candidates who apply for the post of Assistant Professors, they have to acquire Ph.D within 7 years of such appointment as stipulated by AICTE. As per the prescription of AICTE norms the appointment had to be made by open selection through selection committee and the experience prescribed is 15 years for Principal, 10 years for Professor and 3 years for Assistant Professor.

4. The writ petitioners contend, having enjoyed the benefit of financial assistance extended by the Central Government not once but twice, though State of Kerala implemented the same by making necessary changes in the Statute but diluted it for a class of persons as stated above. Therefore they approached the learned Single Judge seeking quashing of Rule 6A as sought in the writ petition. They also contended that the writ petitioners have better qualification than the party respondents who did not even possess the required Ph.D, however, the writ petitioners were placed much below the appellants herein. Therefore they approached the Court in various writ petitions.

5. In some of the writ petitions, Rule 6A came to be challenged and other writ petitions came to be filed challenging the select list prepared for appointment to the post of Professor. However, Government cancelled the select list apparently realising the mistake that one of the candidates who does not even possess the relaxed qualification was included in the select list. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions declaring Rule 6A of the Special Rules of Kerala Technical Education and Services as without legislative competence and unconstitutional on the following grounds.

a) The State of Kerala was duty bound to amend the rules as stipulated by AICTE after availing financial assistance but failed to do so and on the other hand relaxed the qualifications which is nothing but fraud on AICTE and Central Government etc. and b) Rule 6A is invalid as the norms stipulated by AICTE prescribing the minimum qualification under the AICTE Act i.e. Section 10 will have overriding effect on the legislation passed by the State by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us contending that 80% of financial assistance stipulated in both the orders of State of Kerala is for a limited period and thereafter State of Kerala takes the responsibility of the entire financial burden. In none of the clauses of the orders of the State Government such stipulation is made that State of Kerala will keep the orders unchanged indefinitely. When there was no undertaking by the State Government, there was no duty cast on the State Government to keep the norms of the AICTE unchanged for ever. So far as the first Scheme of 1989, the State Government admit