Augustine George Masih, J. (ORAL);— Petitioner has approached this Court claiming a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for adjustment on the post of a Laboratory Attendant from the post of Sweeper, the post on which the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, from the very initiation, was performing the duties of Laboratory Attendant in addition to her own duties. For claiming the said benefit, petitioner has placed reliance upon the benefit granted to one Rajesh Kumar, who was initially appointed as a Cook but was subsequently appointed through conversion as a Laboratory Attendant vide order dated 19.09.2001. Claiming parity on that basis, a prayer has been made for the grant of the benefit claimed. In support of this contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 9 of the Haryana Police Department (State Service Group-D) Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 2000 Rules'). He contends that under this Rule, method of recruitment has been provided and one of the mode of recruitment under clause (iii) is by transfer or deputation of an official already in service of any State Government or the Government of India. He further contends that under sub-rule (c) of this Rule for promotional purposes, posts of Cook, Water Carrier, Mali, Sweeper, Barber, Dhobi, Mochi, Laboratory Attendant and Care Taker have been clubbed together and, therefore, the posts can be interchanged. His further submission is that all these posts fall in Group 'D' category and, therefore, the respondents can, in the light of this Rule, convert the post of Sweeper, which the petitioner is holding, into that of Laboratory Attendant and grant her the said benefit. Accordingly, prayer has been made for the writ petition to be allowed. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as sub-rule (c) of Rule 9 of the 2000 Rules, on which reliance has been placed, is categorizing different posts together and clubbing them up for consideration for promotion to the next higher post, interchangeability of the said post is nowhere referred to in the said Rule. The benefits, therefore, as claimed by the petitioner by asserting that they have been clubbed up together and, therefore, are interchangeable, cannot be accepted. The benefits, therefore, as claimed by the petitioner by asserting that they have been clubbed up together and, therefore, are interchangeable, cannot be accepted. A perusal of this Rule would further show that clubbing up of these posts is for the purpose of determining the quota for promotion to the higher post making employees of these posts eligible for consideration for promotion to the higher post, which cannot be said to be of such a nature which would authorize the respondents to convert the post from one to the other. The assertion of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit, as has been granted to Rajesh Kumar vide order dated 19.09.2001, also cannot be accepted in the light of the affidavit dated 12.10.2012 filed by the respondents, wherein after admitting the fact that this conversion has been done by the then Director General of Police from the post of Cook to that of a Laboratory Attendant, it has been asserted that there is no provision in the 2000 Rules to convert/adjust a person from one post to another post and thus, the conversion is not permissible. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to referred to any provision under these Rules which would entitle conversion/adjustment of a person from one post to another post. In the absence of any statutory Rules merely because earlier an illegal order has been passed, would not confer a right upon the petitioner to claim the same benefit. The benefits, which flow from the statutory Rules/Instructions, can only be enforced in a Court of law. The illegal orders passed by the respondents would not confer similar, equitable right on the petitioner to claim the same benefit. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.