JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The writ petitioner was initially appointed in Electrical Division, HPSEB Ltd., Kaza, as, a cleaner on daily a waged basis. The afore appointment, of the petitioner, on, a daily waged basis, as, a cleaner occurred in September, 1995. He continued to work in the afore capacity till May, 2000. However, in the month of June, 2000, the petitioner was re- engaged as daily waged Driver. Furthermore on 31.03.2004, the petitioner was appointed as T. Mate, and, it is averred in the writ petition that he was rather discharging the duties of a driver. Since, the writ petitioner, despite his discharging the duties of a driver from the year 2000, till the date of institution of the writ petition, was rather regularised, as, a T. Mate, hence, he claims a mandamus being pronounced, upon the respondent that his hitherto service on daily a waged basis, as, a driver, under the respondents, be hence regularised only in the afore capacity. In support of the afore made contention, the petitioner has placed reliance, upon, Annexures A-5, A-6 and A-7, Annexures whereof respectively ,display that muster roll(s), as, a driver, becoming issued to the writ petitioner, and, make display(s) of his maintaining log books, vis-a-vis, vehicle bearing No. HP06-0303, besides display the deployment of the writ petitioner, as, a driver in vehicle bearing No. HP-06-0303. 2. Since, the respondents proceeded to discount the afore daily waged services of the writ petitioner, as, a driver under the respondents, and, contrarily proceeded to regularise him as a T. Mate, thereupon, the writ petitioner becomes aggrieved, and, has been constrained to motion this Court. 3. The writ petitioner, does possess, a valid driving licence. However, even if, assumingly, he did render, the, requisite term of eligibilising service, as a daily waged driver, upon, the afore vehicle, under the respondents, (i) it would not leverage in him any vested right to claim the writ relief, inasmuch, as, his being regularized in the afore capacity. The reason for making the afore conclusion becomes sparked from the R&P Rules, contemplating diverse method(s) of recruitments of drivers. The apposite extract of the R & P Rules, exists in a table cast in the reply to the writ petition, as, furnished by the respondents. The reason for making the afore conclusion becomes sparked from the R&P Rules, contemplating diverse method(s) of recruitments of drivers. The apposite extract of the R & P Rules, exists in a table cast in the reply to the writ petition, as, furnished by the respondents. The contemplations made therein enshrine, that (a) 50 per centum of the vacancies arising against the post of drivers are to be filled up by direct recruitment; (b) and remaining 50 per centum of posts falling in the category of drivers(s), is/are, to be filled up by promotions, (c) inasmuch, as, 30% by promotion from amongst the conductor(s), and, 20% by selection from amongst the officials working on equivalent or any other class-III posts. The contemplated therein streams of recruitment, to the post of driver(s), inasmuch, as, through direct recruitment or through promotion, does not make any express provision(s) or any explicit provision, for daily waged service, of, the writ petitioner, as, a driver, being computable for the purpose, of his being regularised or his occupying the substantive post of driver, carrying a running pay scale. 4. Be that as it may, in case there is non inclusion or exclusion hence for apposite recruitment rather in the R&P Rules, governing the method of recruitment to the post of driver(s), of daily waged serving drivers, through theirs being meted, the, benefit of regularization, (i) thereupon, this Court refrains to breach the mandate of R & P Rules, governing the method of recruitment, of aspirants concerned to the post of driver, as, thereupon, unwanted breach of the apposite Rules would occur. 5. Even otherwise, since nowat, the petitioners is promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman, rather carrying a pay scale higher than the one being accorded to drivers, thereupon, also this Court refrains to grant any relief to the writ petitioner. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the extant writ petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.