JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking direction to the respondents regularise the services of the petitioner. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed as computer Operator with the respondent University for a period of three months vide order dated 15.3.1993. His services were extended from time to time and since then he has been working with the respondents. The Board of Management passed a Resolution dated 22.1.98 to the effect that such persons who had passed the prescribed Job Test/Interview and were found qualified for the post and have been given appointment on ad hoc basis their services should be regularised from the date of joining the post through a Screening Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. Petitioner also faced the Screening Committee but his services had not been regularised and instead of regularising his services, an Advertisement dated 7.4.1998 has been issued by the respondents for filling up the posts of Computer Operators, wherein the minimum qualification has been prescribed as Graduate in Science or Mathematics with one year's experience. Petitioner does not possess such a qualification and hence could not apply for the said post. The case of the respondent University, on the other hand, is that as the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification currently prescribed, he could not be regularised. 3. The issue lies in a very narrow compass : whether petitioner is entitled to be considered for regularisation. The Resolution of the Board of Management reads as under- "Such person who have passed the prescribed job test/interview and are found qualified for the post and have been given appointment on ad hoc basis, their services be regularised from the date of joining the post through the Screening Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor." 4. Therefore, the Resolution provides that a person, who is working on ad hoc basis should have passed the prescribed job test/interview and he must possess the prescribed qualification for the post. Thus, the Resolution itself prescribes that a person must possess the qualification prescribed for the post, meaning thereby that he must possess the currently prescribed qualification and -found qualified, otherwise the language of the Resolution would have been and were found qualified for the post. Thus, the Resolution itself prescribes that a person must possess the qualification prescribed for the post, meaning thereby that he must possess the currently prescribed qualification and -found qualified, otherwise the language of the Resolution would have been and were found qualified for the post. Admittedly, petitioner does not possess the currently prescribed qualification and he cannot claim that he should be regularised merely because on the date of ad hoc appointment, he possessed the qualification prescribed at that time. Even in case of a regular employee, the employer has competence to change the service conditions unilaterally. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shiv Ram Sharma & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 653 , has held as under - "The law is well settled that it is permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts..... It is clear that there is no indefeasible right in respondents to claim for promotion to a higher grade, to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules, framed by the Government in that behalf, would always be favourable to them. In Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889 , it was held by this Court that once appointed, an employee has no vested right in regards to the terms of service but acquires a status and, therefore, the rights and obligations thereto are no longer determined by the consent of the parties but by statute or statutory rules, which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. The principle of avoiding stagnation in a particular post will not be with reference to the conditions of service as such. As along as the rules provide for conditions of service, making an avenue for promotion to higher grade, the observations made in T.R. Kothandaraman v. TN. Water Supply and Drainage Board, (1994) 6 SCC 282 , stand fulfilled." (Emphasis added). 6. Thus, it is clear that even the service conditions can be altered by the employer unilaterally and unless such conditions are held to be arbitrary or unreasonable, no relief can be granted to the employee. 7. Water Supply and Drainage Board, (1994) 6 SCC 282 , stand fulfilled." (Emphasis added). 6. Thus, it is clear that even the service conditions can be altered by the employer unilaterally and unless such conditions are held to be arbitrary or unreasonable, no relief can be granted to the employee. 7. In Union of India v. Yogendra Singh, (1994) 2 SCC 226 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in a similar case that a person seeking relief must satisfy the Court that he possesses the currently prescribed qualification for the post. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Kumari Luni Yogesh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1998 RLW 1735 . 8. As the petitioner, admittedly, does not possess the currently prescribed qualification, no relief can be granted to him. The petition is dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******