JUDGMENT :- 1. All these Writ Petitions arose out of the Government passing an order in G.O.Ms.No.117 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department dated 28.8.2008. By the aforesaid order, the State Government on the basis of the report given by the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Scien annual increments will be sanctioned only on completion of one year from the date of regularisation which will be the date of Government Order regularising their service. 2. In the 1st two Writ Petitions, the contention of the petitioners was that the State Government had issued earlier an order in G.O.Ms.No.116, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH6) Department dated 7.5.1997, wherein 1135 persons, who are working as Animal Husbandry were identified and the State Go various Original Applications filed between the years 1991 and 1996, comprising of 465 persons and the Tribunal directed the State Government to regularize those persons and it is pursuant to the said direction, the case of those persons were considered. 3. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.NO.26796 of 2008 that pursuant to the said G.O, he was appointed on a temporary basis on 22.6.1999 and in the said G.O, it was stated that for the purpose of sending proposals for relaxing the necessary Rules, they were directed to furnish relevant particulars including medi 4. A similar order was also obtained by the petitioner in W.P.No.26962 of 2008. He had filed W.P.No.3153 of 2008 for similar prayer and that Writ Petition was disposed of on 14.2.2008 recording the statement of the State Government that the proposals were under way. 5. Subsequent to the said order, G.O.Ms.No.117 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (AH7) Department dated 28.8.2008 came to be passed as noted already. By the said G.O, the petitioners in these two Writ Petitions as well as Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.11713 and 11714 of 2009 got their services regularized 6. In respect of the first batch of two Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners as projected in the affidavit was that already proposals were sent by the Department on several days starting from 2004 to 2008. The question of Government considering those proposals and regularising their service long after their e 7. In respect of the first batch of two Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners as projected in the affidavit was that already proposals were sent by the Department on several days starting from 2004 to 2008. The question of Government considering those proposals and regularising their service long after their e 7. In the second batch of two Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners was identical except that it was fairly submitted by Mr.P.Manoj Kumar that the two petitioners were not party to any of the proceedings in the Original Applications before the Tribunal. But, in any event, they have been working continuously fro 8. The first two Writ Petitions were admitted on 12.11.2008 and 13.11.2008 and pending the Writ Petitions, this Court granted an interim stay. Aggrieved by the said interim order, a vacate stay application was also filed by the respondents State in M.P.No.1 of 2011 together with supporting counter affidavit dated 9.5. 9. In the counter affidavit filed, it was contended that in respect of the first 2 petitioners, they were appointed as per G.O.Ms.No.116, Animal Husbandry Department dated 7.5.1997, in which 826 posts were sanctioned to fill up the post from the casual labourers, who have put in more than 10 years of service as on temporary Government servant, they are entitled for regular annual increment till their services were regularized. As per Rule 23(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, person is eligible to draw annual incremental arrears in the time scale of pay only from the date of issuance of the Governm cannot be counted for pension, was also denied and it is stated that the temporary service rendered by them was also eligible for qualifying service under the Pension Rules. Therefore, it was argued that the recovery of the excess amount paid was also valid. 10. It is under the said circumstances, it has to be remained whether the impugned Government Order requires any further change that too at the hands of this Court by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. Though the petitioners worked in the post of casual labourers appointed by the Unit Level Officers, it cannot be said that they have regular appointments. But for the impugned Government Order, the petitioners could not have moved this Court for directing the respondents to consider their regularization. On the 12. 11. Though the petitioners worked in the post of casual labourers appointed by the Unit Level Officers, it cannot be said that they have regular appointments. But for the impugned Government Order, the petitioners could not have moved this Court for directing the respondents to consider their regularization. On the 12. The power to relax essential qualification or minimum general educational qualification available under Rule 48 of the General Rules has to be exercised only by the State Government taking into account the relevant consideration. In this case, the regularization order was in terms of 163 named workers. The Sta 13. It has been noted by the Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 that regularization cannot be a source of recruitment and any appointment to the State has to be done only as per the Recruitment Rules consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutio 14. Very recently, the issue relating to relaxation came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397 . The Supreme Court has held that the engagement of casual labourers even for considerably long duration did not confer any l "26. Lastly, as regards the submission that the action of the appellants is highly discriminatory inasmuch as some similarly situated persons have been appointed/absorbed as Sepoys, the argument is stated to be rejected. It is well settled that writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists 15. In the light of the legal pronouncement, the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be countenanced. Hence, all the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 16. However, in W.P.Nos.26796 and 26962 of 2008, the petitioners even for the temporary service were given the benefit of increments by the Unit level officers and it is not due to their fault. If recoveries are made, considering they are class IV employees, their case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supre 17. Therefore, all the four Writ Petitions stand dismissed except with the above direction. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.