JUDGMENT : Both these writ petitions have been filed with similar set of facts and raise common question of law. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7029/2022 was initially appointed as Temporary LD Clerk in the office of the 2nd respondent-Kerala State Waqf Board on 02.12.2006. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Temporary LD Stenographer on 02.12.2006. The 3rd petitioner was appointed as Temporary LD Clerk on 09.03.2007. They were appointed as they were sponsored by employment exchange and were successful in a selection process consisting of written test and interview. The petitioners state that their selection and appointment were in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2003. 3. The 1st petitioner is a graduate in Zoology and holds Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application. He has also passed typewriting English Higher. The 2nd petitioner holds Diploma in Commercial Practice and is qualified in Computer Word Processing Malayalam Lower. The 3rd petitioner is a Commerce graduate and has qualified Typewriting English and Hindi Higher. He also holds DOEACC 'O' Level examination. 4. The petitioners state that during the time of their appointment, most of the employees under the Waqf Board were working on daily wages or contract basis. The 2nd respondent regularised the services of many employees. One Smt. Junaitha filed W.P.(C) No.14845/2009 and this Court allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to regularise the service of Smt. Junaitha with retrospective effect and with consequential benefits. 5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent initiated steps to regularise the service of temporary employees like the petitioners. While so, the 2003 Regulations were replaced by the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016. Regulation 5.2(2) of Chapter 4 of the Regulations, 2016 provided that employees who were appointed through Employment Exchanges and continuing on contract basis with a minimum of seven years service, shall be allowed to continue in service and if such employees have all the qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, their services shall be regularised with prospective effect from the date of publication of Regulations. Ext.P4 Regulations were published on 01.02.2016. 6. The petitioners state that they are all qualified to hold their respective posts and their services are therefore liable to be regularised. However, the regularisation process was not proceed with. The petitioners therefore filed W.P.(C) No.19140/2017. Ext.P4 Regulations were published on 01.02.2016. 6. The petitioners state that they are all qualified to hold their respective posts and their services are therefore liable to be regularised. However, the regularisation process was not proceed with. The petitioners therefore filed W.P.(C) No.19140/2017. This Court as per Ext.P20 judgment dated 28.07.2017 disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners. Contending that the representations of the petitioners were already rejected, the 1st respondent filed W.A. No.2300/2017 against Ext.P20 judgment. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Appeal affirming Ext.P20 judgment, modifying the judgment to the extent to dispose of the pending representations in accordance with whichever Regulations in force. 7. On 24.07.2019, by Ext.P22 order, the 1st respondent rejected the representations of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged Ext.P22 order filing W.P.(C) No.23682/2019. This Court set aside Ext.P22 GO and directed the respondents to consider the matter afresh in terms of Regulations, 2016. Subsequently, the 1st respondent granted approval for regularisation of the services of the petitioners, as per Ext.P32. In Ext.P32, it was stated that regularisation will take effect only from the date of the GO. The petitioners would contend that the said condition goes against the provisions of the Regulations, 2016. The 3rd respondent, however, passed Ext.P34 proceedings regularising the services of the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2022 only. The petitioners are aggrieved by the prospective regularisation. 8. The petitioners submitted representations seeking retrospective regularisation. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent-Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board prepared a detailed report, Ext.P40. Ext.P40 indicated that the retrospective regularisation of the petitioners will not create any additional financial burden to the Government and that the case of the petitioners for retrospective regularisation is fully justified. In spite of the recommendations of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners are not given the benefit of retrospective regularisation to which they are statutorily entitled to, contend the petitioners. 9. As the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7029/2022 has filed a separate writ petition, W.P.(C) No.30471/2022, the case of the 2nd petitioner is being considered in W.P.(C) No.30471/2022. 10. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30471/2022 was also recruited through employment Exchange after a written test and interview in terms of the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2003. She was appointed as temporary LD Stenographer with effect from 19.03.2007. The petitioner's service was regularised with effect from 01.01.2022. 10. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30471/2022 was also recruited through employment Exchange after a written test and interview in terms of the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2003. She was appointed as temporary LD Stenographer with effect from 19.03.2007. The petitioner's service was regularised with effect from 01.01.2022. The petitioner would contend that she is also entitled to regularisation with retrospective effect. 11. By Ext.P22 Government Order dated 01.01.2022, the Principal Secretary to the Government ordered that the petitioner be regularised in service as LD Typist with effect from the date of Ext.P22 order. In fact, the petitioner was working as LD Stenographer. The Kerala State Waqf Board by Ext.P19 decision dated 07.12.2021 had recommended to regularise the petitioner in the post held by the petitioner. 12. By Ext.P31 communication dated 17.02.2022, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board had again recommended to regularise the service of the petitioner as Confidential Assistant Grade-II. Ext.P32 Kerala Waqf Regulations, 2003 would show that there is a post of LD Stenographer under the Kerala State Waqf Board. However, the petitioner was finally regularised only in the post of LD Typist as per Ext.P22 Government Order. The petitioner seeks regularisation in the post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II with effect from 01.02.2016. 13. The 1st respondent-State of Kerala resisted the writ petitions filing counter affidavit. The 1st respondent submitted that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis as they were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The petitioners were qualified for appointment as per the then existing Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2003. The chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board reported that after 2008, no regular recruitment was made to the Waqf Board following procedures prescribed by the Regulations. The employees were appointed on temporary basis and some of them were regularised on the basis of the orders passed by the High Court of Kerala as well as the Government. 14. On and from 01.02.2016, the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016 came into force. Regulation 5.2(2) of the Regulations, 2016 provided that employees, who were appointed through the Employment Exchange and continuing on contract basis with minimum of seven years service under the Board, shall be allowed to continue in service and that if such employees have all the qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, their service shall be regularised with prospective effect from the date of publication of Regulations. 15. 15. The 1st respondent, however, pointed out that the Government as per GO(P) No.31/2018/Fin dated 03.03.2018 have stipulated that under any circumstances the temporary employees in Government Departments, semi government/ public sector undertakings and institutions which provide salary and pension to the employees with the assistance of government grant, regularisation shall be effective only from the date of the issuance of the order. 16. The 1st respondent further submitted that the Board furnished proposals leading to regularisation of 13 temporary employees including the petitioners who were recruited through Employment Exchange and continuing on contract basis for more than seven years. On 15.11.2017, the Government took a policy decision to entrust the recruitment of employees in the Kerala State Waqf Board to the Kerala Public Service Commission. It was also decided to regularise only those temporary members who were in the scale of pay as on 15.11.2017. But, there were no temporary employees serving in the scale of pay. The 1st respondent states that Regulation 5.2(2) lacked transparency regarding recruitment of the officers and employees and therefore procedure for amendment of the said sub-regulation has been initiated. 17. The petitioners were qualified on 01.02.2016, the date of publication of the Regulations, 2016 and on that date, the petitioners had completed seven years qualifying service as stipulated in the Regulations. Therefore, the Government decided to regularise the service of the petitioners in their respective posts without retrospective effect. Prospective effect was given to their regularisation in view of GO(P) No.31/2018/Fin dated 03.03.2018 which stipulated that under no circumstances, the temporary employees in Government Department, semi government / public sector undertakings and the institutions which provide salary and pension to the employees with the assistance of Government grant are regularised retrospectively. The writ petitions are therefore without any force or merit and are liable to be dismissed, contended the 1st respondent. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing the State of Kerala and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Waqf Board. 19. The petitioners were appointed as Temporary LD Clerk / Temporary LD Stenographer during the years 20062007 as per the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2003, which was in vogue then. The petitioners were sponsored by Employment Exchange. The petitioners were selected on the basis of a written examination and interview. The initial appointments were for a period of three years. 19. The petitioners were appointed as Temporary LD Clerk / Temporary LD Stenographer during the years 20062007 as per the Kerala Waqf Board Regulations, 2003, which was in vogue then. The petitioners were sponsored by Employment Exchange. The petitioners were selected on the basis of a written examination and interview. The initial appointments were for a period of three years. However, the petitioners continued in service on contract basis as per the orders issued by the Waqf Board. 20. The Regulations, 2003 were replaced by the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016 as per GO dated 27.01.2016. The Regulations, 2016 were published in Kerala Gazette on 01.02.2016. Regulation 5.2(2) of Chapter IV of the Regulations, 2016 provided that employees, who were appointed through Employment Exchanges and continuing on contract basis with a minimum of seven years service in the service of the Board, shall be allowed to continue in service even after the Regulations came into force. If such employees have all the qualifications prescribed under the Regulations, their service shall be regularised with the prior sanction of the Government with prospective effect from the date of publication of the Regulations. 21. Relying on the Regulations, 2016, the petitioners submitted representations seeking to regularise their services as LD Clerk and LD Stenographer. 22. The representations of the petitioners were rejected as per Ext.P22 Government Order dated 24.07.2019. The representations were rejected relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ AIR 2006 SC 1806 ]. 23. The petitioners submitted further representations seeking regularisation. The Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board forwarded Ext.P29 resolution dated 07.12.2021 resolving that in view of Regulation 5.2(2), employees like the petitioners who satisfy the educational qualifications for holding the posts and who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange for their appointment can be regularised with the sanction of the Government. 24. Thereafter, by Ext.P34 proceedings dated 10.01.2022 of the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board, the petitioners were regularised in service with effect from 01.01.2022. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that as per Regulation 5.2(2), the petitioners are liable to be regularised in service with effect from 01.02.2016, with effect from which date the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016 came into force. 25. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that as per Regulation 5.2(2), the petitioners are liable to be regularised in service with effect from 01.02.2016, with effect from which date the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016 came into force. 25. The respondents have taken a stand that as per GO(P) No.31/2018/Fin dated 03.03.2018, under any circumstances, the temporary employees in Government Departments, semi Government / public sector undertakings and institutions which provide salary and pension to the employees with the assistance of Government grant, the regularisation shall be effective only from the date of the issuance of the order. The question is whether such Government Orders can deny the petitioners regularisation in service with effect from the date on which the Regulations, 2016 came into force. 26. It is to be noted that unlike service rules relating to other Boards and Public Sector Undertakings, the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016 stand on a different footing. In service jurisprudence, the generally accepted modes of appointment are appointment by direct recruitment, appointment by promotion, appointment by transfer and appointment on deputation. Regularisation is not usually adopted as a mode of recruitment in Government services and services in Public Sector Undertakings. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Umadevi (supra) that regularisation of temporary employees shall be made subject to certain norms. Those who were appointed on temporary basis should be duly qualified to hold the post. Such temporary appointments should be against sanctioned posts. The temporary employees should have worked at least for a period of ten years without break. Such continuous service should not be based on any court orders. Such employees should have completed ten years service by 10.04.2006. Regularisation of their services should be on the basis of a Scheme framed by the State Government. Grant of regularisation should be a one time affair and shall not be continued. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court delivered the judgment in Umadevi (supra) while dealing with services which did not statutorily recognise regularisation as a mode of appointment to government service / to the services under the Public Sector Undertakings. 29. Grant of regularisation should be a one time affair and shall not be continued. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court delivered the judgment in Umadevi (supra) while dealing with services which did not statutorily recognise regularisation as a mode of appointment to government service / to the services under the Public Sector Undertakings. 29. In the case of the Kerala State Waqf Board, Section 24 of the Waqf Act, 1995, provides that the Board shall have the assistance of such number of officers and other employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions under the Act, details thereof shall be determined by the Board in consultation with the State Government. Section 24(2) provides that the appointment of officers and other employees, their term of office and conditions of service shall be such as may be provided by the Regulations. 30. Ext.P14-Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 110 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and with the previous sanction of the Government of Kerala. Chapter IV of the Regulations, 2016 provides for recruitment of officers and employees. Regulation 5.2(2) of the Regulations reads as follows : Employees who were appointed through the Employment Exchange and continuing on contract basis with minimum of seven years service in the service of the Board shall be allowed to continue in the service of the Board even after these regulations come into force. If such employees have all the qualifications prescribed under the regulations, their service shall be regularised with the prior sanction of the Government with prospective effect from the date of publication of regulations. The Regulations therefore statutorily accept regularisation as a mode of appointment. The conditions stipulated in Regulation 5.2(2) are: (i) the temporary employees should be appointed through Employment Exchanges. (ii) they should be continuing on contract basis with minimum of seven years of service. (iii) the employees shall have all the qualifications prescribed under the Regulations and regularisation should be with prior sanction of the Government. Regulation 5.2(2) specifically lays down that regularisation of employees shall be with prospective effect from the date of publication of Regulations. 31. In the case of the petitioners, all the petitioners were appointed through Employment Exchanges and they were appointed after undergoing a selection process consisting of written test and interview. Regulation 5.2(2) specifically lays down that regularisation of employees shall be with prospective effect from the date of publication of Regulations. 31. In the case of the petitioners, all the petitioners were appointed through Employment Exchanges and they were appointed after undergoing a selection process consisting of written test and interview. They have been continuing on contract basis and had more than seven years service in the Waqf Board when the Regulations, 2016 came into force. The petitioners possess the qualifications prescribed for the posts under the Regulations. The Government has granted sanction for regularisation of the petitioners. 32. When the petitioners satisfy all the eligibility conditions for regularisation as mandated by the Regulations, 2016 and when the Government has granted sanction for regularisation, such regularisation should be with effect from the date of publication of Regulations as stipulated by Regulation 5.2(2). The decision of the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from a subsequent date, namely 01.01.2022, is therefore unsustainable. 33. It is true that Ext.P36 Government Order dated 03.03.2018 gives general instructions and stipulates that regularisation of Government employees or the employees of the Semi Government / Public Sector Undertakings shall be only with effect from the date of the order of regularisation. Ext.P36 is an order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, in exercise of the executive power of the State. The Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016, on the other hand, have statutory force supported by Section 24 and Section 110 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Therefore, Ext.P36 Government Order cannot override the provisions of the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016. 34. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30471/2022, it is evident that by Ext.P19, the Board has taken a decision to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post held by the petitioner. Ext.P31 recommendation dated 17.02.2022 of the Chief Executive Officer is to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II as the post of LD Stenographer was re-designated as Confidential Assistant. Clause 5.2(2) of the Regulations, 2016 also contemplates regularisation of employees in the post held by them, in respect of which the employees satisfy the educational qualification. Therefore, the decision of the Government contained in Ext.P22 order dated 01.01.2022 to regularise the petitioner as LD Typist cannot be justified. 35. Clause 5.2(2) of the Regulations, 2016 also contemplates regularisation of employees in the post held by them, in respect of which the employees satisfy the educational qualification. Therefore, the decision of the Government contained in Ext.P22 order dated 01.01.2022 to regularise the petitioner as LD Typist cannot be justified. 35. In the afore circumstances, the petitioners are bound to succeed. Ext.P34 proceedings of the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.7029/2022 (Ext.P25 in W.P.(C) No.30471/2022) is therefore set aside to the extent it restricts the date of regularisation of the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2022. The 3rd respondent is directed to regularise the services of the petitioners, with effect from 01.02.2016, the date of publication of the Kerala State Waqf Board Regulations, 2016. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30471/2022 shall be regularised in the post of Confidential Assistant Grade-II as recommended by the 3rd respondent-Chief Executive Officer in Ext.P31 communication dated 17.02.2022. The petitioners shall be granted all consequential benefits. The writ petitions are allowed as above.