Ramachandran, J.:— In this batch of writ appeals, the Government challenges the judgments passed in different writ petitions, hereby the claims put in by the petitioners for regularisation 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”.

2. 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 incumbents had obtained such degree before their appointment, by undergoing correspondence course.

3. 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 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.

4. 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 regularisation 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.

5. 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 09-0.1-2001. Till such time the appointments were to be governed by executive orders issued by the Government and when the admitted position was that B.Ed degree obtained by the incumbents were only after undergoing correspondence course and not by a regular method of study, basically they were to be considered as ineligible for a valid appointment and the Government orders could not have been overlooked.

6. In answer to the allegation as above, counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgments were rested on binding precedents and especially the decision reported in Mohanan Nair v. State of Kerala [1994 (2) KLT 537]. Advertence was also made by the learned single Judge to Dr. B.L Asawa v. State of Rajasthan [(1982) 2 SCC 55 : AIR 1982 SC 933]. Although if we adopt the arguments of the Government in its face value, there was always a precondition perceivable that only candidates who were qualified as per the Government Orders were to be considered as eligible for appointment, the Government's stand appears to be in conflict with earlier orders, which still governed such issues. Resultantly, we have to hold that full and complete attention had not been bestowed by the Government in issuing orders, and thereby the petitioners came to be technically beneficiaries.

7. We had opportunity to advert to the. above said decisions. More or less the issue had arisen in Mohanan Nair v. State of Kerala (cited supra). A compilation of Government Orders on the subject had been made available by the petitioners in the writ petitions, and one of the documents is G.O (MS) 526.PD. dated 17-07-1965. The caption of the order is ‘automatic recognition’. The Government had ordered that “in supersession of all existing orders in the subject……………… other Degrees and Diplomas awarded by statutory Universities established by an Act of the Central or State Legislature or by other Institutions of higher learning recognised as Universities by the Central University Grants Commission, should be recognised”. The counsel submits that the above order even now governs the field. Mr. Benoy Thomas further points out that the later Government Orders (in the complication) viz., G.O (MS) 153/2000.O-Edn. dated 19-05-2000, also throws light to these aspects. Government had referred to the essential educational qualifications for appointment as Higher Secondary School Teachers in various disciplines. The order concluded by stating that “it is also hereby stipulated that, all those qualifications mentioned herein and in earlier orders will be treated as valid only if acquired from any of the Universities in Kerala or from any of the Universities recognised by the Government of Kerala”. According to him, a combined reading of these may clarify the position that the petitioners in the writ petitions possess the qualifications and restrictive view taken by the educational authorities was not logical.

8. The learned counsel points out that substantially the submission as above had been found acceptance in Mohanan Nair's case (cited supra). The learned Judge had held that the recognition of the qualification by the University is not relevant for the recognition of qualifications by the Government. The Government may consistently with its needs recognise educational qualifications irrespective of whether the University recognises them or not. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the learned Judge had referred to the concept of Open Universities, which we may extract herein below:

“Distance Education or continuing education; is often erroneously considered inferior to the technical formal education by attendance of regular classes. A perceptive study of distance education, made in “OPEN UNIVERSITIES IVORY TOWERS THROWN OPEN” edited by Ram Reddy, places the subject in perspective. The availability of full time teachers, class rooms, limitation of rigid hours of classes and the expenses etc., limit the access to learning to a few. This works discrimination against the sections of the society which cannot, due to socio-economic factors, afford formal education. Those who have missed educational opportunities need a second chance. The urge of the working people, housewives and others, is met by deformalising education. The system of distance education removes the imbalance in the opportunities of education caused by socio-economic factors. The fundamental principle of distance education is that is provides equality of opportunity of education and access to higher education.

It is was the UNESCO Commission on education that suggested that education should be deformalised and replaced by flexible diversified models. Distance education marks the transformation of the closed formal rigid, elitist, educational system into an open and flexible system.

The syllabi of distance education courses are carefully drawn by academicians, to match the syllabi of the formal degree courses. Theory and practicals are provided at times suitable to the students. There is no reason for considering distance education degree and less of a degree than the degree obtained by attending classes. The Government of Kerala therefore, rightly recognised degree from statutory Universities without limiting it to degrees obtained by attendance of classes. The limitation of recognition to statutory universities, as distinct from private institutions assures the quality of education which equals “regular” degrees”.

9. Mr. Benoy Thomas submits that this had been found acceptable by the learned single Judge and since no manifest error is pointed out, appeals are liable to be rejected. According to him, the hyper technical argument with reference to several orders passed from time to time may not clothe the Government with power to dethrone the petitioners, as consistency always was to be observed. He submits a proposition that law does not recognise a conditional approval in the matter of appointment of teachers. According to him, the background of the appointments also might be relevant. Especially the Pre-degree Course were delinked from the Colleges and were attached to Schools as a part of policy decision and part of Higher Secondary Education. The Teachers of Colleges were not bound to obtain B.Ed degree, and were competent to take classes for pre-degree courses. This was the guiding principle, which prompted the Government to issue orders, whereby unnecessary hassles were attempted to be done away with. He also submits that reference to the interlocutory and final orders passed by the Supreme Court in M.M Dolichan v. State of Kerala ((2001) 1 SCC 151 : AIR 2001 SC 216) might be relevant, in the aforesaid circumstances, since all appointments made of qualified hands were directed too be regularised.

10. Counsel had also adverted to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 05-11-2004 in W.A No. 2014 Of 2004, where almost an identical issue had been highlighted. Persons with Ph.D/M. Phil./M.Ed degree are exempted from passing that M. Phil. in the concerned subject should have been one awarded by any of the Universities in Kerala or recognised as equivalent thereto by any of the Universities in Kerala for the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher. In the case at hand, the candidate possessed a qualification of M.Ed degree, but it was not a recognised qualification by the Universities in Kerala. The learned Judge had held that only in the case of M. Phil. equivalence had been stipulated in the Rules, but not in the case of M.Ed and therefore the candidate was deemed to be qualified for promotion. The view as above had been upheld by the Division Bench.

11. The petitioners concerned had been working as Higher Secondary School Teachers for over 4 years and had the benefit of a judgment, whereunder they could have hoped for regularisation. It is not as if they are unfit to impart lessons altogether, they are having Masters Degree in the subject, and degree in education by a recognised method. On technical grounds, it may not therefore be justifiable to upset the position and throw them out as it will be in the interest of none. We uphold the judgment.

12. The reasoning adopted by the learned Judge in the connected cases is more or less similar in all essential aspect and we do not think it will be necessary to separately advert to the facts of the individual cases. The teachers are entitled to the benefit of the declaration granted by the learned single Judge.

13. The writ appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.