Order Heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent University. 2. The petitioner seeks direction for his absorption in the regular establishment of the University on the post of Field Overseer. He was appointed as casual labourer in the Department of Agronomy of the respondent Rajendra Agricultural University in skilled category. According to him, the post of skilled labour is equivalent to Field Overseer/Laboratory Attendant. On the ground that he has worked in the University continuously for the last 18 years, he seeks directions for his absorption. 3. It appears that the question of regularisation of the casual employees of the Rajendra Agricultural University went up before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.18594 of 1994. After considering the matter the Court held that it should be proper and consistent with the ends of justice that regularisation of the casual employees be made but only against 35% of the available vacancies in the regular sanction post. It may be mentioned here that as per the prevailing rules 50% of the available vacancies were set apart for the casual employees. While directing that 35% of the available vacancies be filled up by process of regularisation from among the casual workers the Court laid down that only those employees who had worked in the Rajendra Agricultural University for more than 15 years should be considered provided they have requisite qualification for regular appointment and they are also physically fit for permanent absorption. Rest of the 65% vacancies were to be filled up by open advertisement from the market. The stand of the University is that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for his absorption in the post of Field Overseer. According to it, the minimum qualification for such appointment is I.Sc/I.Sc. (Agriculture) whereas the petitioner is I.A. pass. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said stand of the University as untenable. Counsel firstly referred to the office order No.585 dated 6.9.86 in support of the contention that all Intermediates whether with Science or not, are qualified for the post of Field Overseer. The said office order, however, appears to have been superseded by another office order bearing No.181 dated 8.4.87. The very opening of the said order states that the same was issued "In partial modification of this office order no.585 dated 6.9.86". The said office order, however, appears to have been superseded by another office order bearing No.181 dated 8.4.87. The very opening of the said order states that the same was issued "In partial modification of this office order no.585 dated 6.9.86". Besides, in the advertisement which had been issued inviting applications from the casual employees for absorption (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit) also, a similar qualification has been mentioned. From reading of Annexure-C it is evident that only I.Sc. (I.Sc. Agr.) are eligible for appointment. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that advertisement as contained in Annexure-C is applicable only to such candidates who seek their appointment against 65% vacancies, that is to say, appointment from open market. According to the counsel, in the case of casual employees seeking absorption against 35% vacancies it is Annexure-B which is applicable. The submission is wholly misconceived. As stated above, the Supreme Court has laid down in categorical terms that only those casual employees shall be eligible for absorption who possess the minimum qualification "meant for regular appointment". In other words, in the matter of qualification, no distinction is to be made between direct appointment from open market and absorption of the casual employees. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relied on two certificates dated 3.1.86 and 5.10.87 as contained respectively in Annexures 14 and 2. He submitted that the fact that during the periods mentioned in those certificates the petitioner had worked as skilled labourer/Field Assistant shows that he possessed the necessary qualification. This submission, too, is untenable. As stated in the counter affidavit, the scheme under which they worked, and to which the services related, were temporary and time bound scheme. During, periods in question the petitioner had worked on fixed salary of Rs. 500/- per month. The service conditions apperatining to such appointment being entirely different, I fail to appreciate as to how he can be said to be eligible merely because he worked on a post which, according to him, was equivalent to the post of Field Overseer ? The office order as contained in Annexure-4 and the advertisement contained in Annexure-C specifically mention the qualification and unless the petitioner is found to possess prescribed qualifications he cannot be considered to be eligible for his absorption. 5. In course of hearing counsel produced copy of the corrigendum contained in memo no. The office order as contained in Annexure-4 and the advertisement contained in Annexure-C specifically mention the qualification and unless the petitioner is found to possess prescribed qualifications he cannot be considered to be eligible for his absorption. 5. In course of hearing counsel produced copy of the corrigendum contained in memo no. 259 dated 5.10.98 and submitted that several class III and Class IV posts which were earmarked for casual employees have been transferred for being filled up by direct recruitment. The submission, in my opinion, is completely beside the point. The only point for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner possesses requisite qualification or not. As far as transfer of posts is concerned, that is said to be on account of the fact that eligible casual employees were not available in their own category in sufficient number. 6. Counsel as a last resort submitted that the University may be directed to relax the conditions of eligibility as has been done in other cases. I am afraid, this kind of order cannot be issued by this Court. Power of relaxation is supposed to be exercised to mitigate the hardship of the person in the special facts of the case. If the Courts were to issue direction of that kind, in all similar cases where the candidates do not possess the requisite Qualification similar direction may be sought from this Court. I, therefore, do not consider it proper to direct the respondents to relax the condition of eligibility relating to qualification. When the office order/advertisement have laid down the qualification of I.Sc. or I.Sc. (Agr.) as the requisite qualification, the Court cannot also substitute another qualification and say that those who do not have a Science or Agriculture background, should be appointed. 7. In the above premises, I find myself unable to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.