JUDGMENT D. RAJU, C.J.—The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the reliefs in the nature of direction to the second Respondent to consider and grant provisional State-level accreditation, recognition to the petitioners immediately under 1988 Rules till they are granted State-level accreditation and direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider, grant forthwith State level accreditation/recognition to the petitioners under the Himachal Pradesh Press Correspondents Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 1988. The petitioners also seek for the further relief to declare Rule 8(b)(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Press Correspondents Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 1991 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and restrain Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 from publishing the 1991 Rules in the Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette. Even at the threshold, we may point out that the relief sought for irrespect of 1991 Rules, as noticed above, does not call for our consideration for decision in view of the fact situation that the said Rules have not been so far notified and have therefore, not come into force and no exercise in futility would be undertaken by deciding the claims made by the petitioners in respect of 1991 Rules, which are yet to come into force. As a matter of fact, in the reply filed by the Respondents one of the preliminary objections taken is that the Rules in force are only the Himachal Pradesh Press Correspondents Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 1988 and that the new Himachal Pradesh Press Correspondents5 Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 1991 will come into force only after they have been published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra. Hence, our consideration is confined to the other reliefs claimed, based on the 1988 Rules only. 2. The first of the petitioners is said to be the editor of Himachal Ki Pukar, a weekly said to De published since January 1989 from Shimla. The second petitioner is said to be the news editor of Shimla Times which is also another weekly said to be published from Shimla since December 1991. it is also claimed by this petitioner that from the year 1985 to December 1991, he was the editor of Shimla Times1, a weekly The third petitioner is said to be the editor of News Post’ yet another weekly said to be published since 1985 from Shimla. The three newspapers, noted above, are said to be duly registered with the Registrar of Newspapers, New Delhi. The Himachal! The three newspapers, noted above, are said to be duly registered with the Registrar of Newspapers, New Delhi. The Himachal! Pradesh Government has notified the Himachal Pradesh Press Correspondents-Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Rules) in supersession of the Himachal Pradesh Press Accreditation and Recognition Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 1986 Rules). The 1988 Rules were said to have been published in the Government Gazette dated 28.4.1988 arid came into force with effect from the said date. The 1988 Rules defines Accredited Correspondent to mean a correspondent who has been granted recognition in accordance with the procedure prescribed by those rules and further provides that there will be two types of cards, one denoting accreditation and the other denoting recognition and that cards will be issued to those only who fulfil the conditions laid down in the relevant Rule. The Rules also contemplate the Constitution of a Press Accreditation Committee to which all claims for accreditation and recognition of Press Correspondents shall be referred to and the decision taken by the said Committee will be considered to be final so far as the Government is concerned and that such Committee shall meet once in a year The elevant procedure for accreditation as also the eligibility conditions therefor also prescribed in the said Rules, which, it can be pointed out at this .stage, are not Rules made under any statute but made in exercise of executive and administrative power which vest with the State Government by virtue of Article 1C2 of the Constitution of India. Since ail the three petitioners are admittedly concerned and connected with weeklies, it could be seen from the Rules that Rule 8(1)(b) governs the claims in respect of weeklies and other periodicals. It is seen that the qualification for consideration for granting accreditation is that the weekly or fortnightly concerned should be published without any break between one publication and other and that the circulation of it should not be less than 1000 copies and at least half of the circulation should be in Himachal! Pradesh. The Rule further stipulates in case of Weeklies/ Fortnightlies, accreditation will be given to only one person of the State, who may be the editor of the paper concerned or its correspondent. Pradesh. The Rule further stipulates in case of Weeklies/ Fortnightlies, accreditation will be given to only one person of the State, who may be the editor of the paper concerned or its correspondent. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 mandates that all those editors of weeklies/fortnightlies, who have been given State level/District level accreditation prior to the enforcement of the Rules shall hold those accreditation till they continue to be the editors of such weeklies. Besides, the rules make it clear that the accreditation granted with be persona! and shall lapse as soon they discontinue to be the editors. Rule 11 provides for recognition and contemplates an application for grant of recognition being made for the State Headquarters by a correspondent through the editor of the newspaper. The procedure which has to be observed for granting such accreditation is also laid down in detail. The Rules also provide for disaccreditaticn as well as derecognition apart from making provision for periodical review of accredited/recognised correspondents lists. Rule 20 deals with the grant of provisional accreditation and recognition pending consideration of the claim by the Press Accreditation Committee if a correspondent or editor fulfils all the conditions enumerated for the grant of accreditation or recognition. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they were eligible and entitled to State level accreditation/recognition under the 1988 Rules, they have been given only District level accreditation and recognition despite repeated applications made and reminders sent for according them State level accreditation as per the Rules. According to them, their weeklies have more than 2000 circulation to their credit, out of which half of the number are circulated in the entire State of Himachal! Pradesh They also point out that the State level accreditation and recognition has been given to the editors of the weeklies, such as, Shri Ram Ratta Pal-Himachal Darpan, (ii) Shri D.P. Uniyal-Himalaya Times, (iii) Shri B.L. Sood-Parvat Ki Goonj and (iv) Shri Kameshwar Pandit Himachal Janta. A grievance is made about the circular dated 5.12.1991, said to have been issued by the second Respondent, declaring that the petitioners have been given District-level accreditation and recognition whereas four persons, noticed above, have been given State-level accreditation and recognition. A grievance is made about the circular dated 5.12.1991, said to have been issued by the second Respondent, declaring that the petitioners have been given District-level accreditation and recognition whereas four persons, noticed above, have been given State-level accreditation and recognition. The further contention of the petitioners in their petition is that according of State-level accreditation and recognition carries higher status and better facilities in addition to those facilities which are accorded in favour of those who were granted District-level accreditation and recognition and the action of the Respondents in granting only District-level accreditation and recognition to the petitioners in contrast to those four persons, who are similarly situated like the petitioners, who have been otherwise granted State level accreditation and recognition constitutes not only hostile discrimination but also amounts to an arbitrary - and unreasonable Act, which cannot be justified in law. 4. Hence, they claim for the reliefs, referred to above. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a common reply disputing and denying the various allegations made by the petitioners and contesting the claim for the reliefs made therein. By way of a preliminary objection, it is also contended that the rules framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in this regard and in force are only the 1988 Rules and that they being not statutory rules having any statutory basis or source of its origin and being administrative in character are not justiciable in a Court of law. They are said to be merely administrative guidelines for the departmental officials for granting accreditation and do not confer any rights as such in private individuals, like the petitioners. After dealing with every one of the contentions of the petitioners, it is stated that the Press Accreditation Committee the 3rd Respondent has decided to give the petitioners only District-level accreditation since ail the weeklies published in the Districts have been resolved to be accorded with only District-level accreditation at the places from where they are published, and that this resolve or decision will not apply to the weeklies which were already given State-level accreditation at an earlier point of time. While dealing with the cases of Ram Rattan Pal, D.P. Uniyal, B.L Sood and Kameshwar Pandit, who have been given accreditation at the State-level, it is stated that Ram Rattan Pal was really granted provisional State level accreditation/recognition as early as on 19.7.1974, which came to be regularised only with effect from 12.10.1979 as in the case of D.P. Uniyal and that Kameshwar Pandit was granted provisional accreditation/regularisation of State level as early as on 2.2.1980 and the same came to be regularised with effect from 21.5.1986 whereas Bishamber Lai Sood was accorded provisional State level accreditation/ regularisation on 5.2.1980 and this came to be regularised on 21.5.1986 and no weekly published from Districts has been accorded accreditation or recognition after 1986 and as a matter of fact even after 1980 no State level accreditation either provisional or regular for the first time was even granted and consequently the allegation of discrimination or meeting out of arbitrary and unreasonable treatment to the petitioners does not arise at all on facts and the grievance expressed in this regard has no basis or merit. As a matter of fact, the Respondents placed strong reliance upon the 1988 Rules, particularly Rule 8(2) which stipulate that in case of weeklies/ fortnightlies accreditation will be given to only one person of the District from which the same is published. The action of the Government in acting on the decision of the Press Accreditation Committee and in not granting State-level accreditation to the petitioners is said to be legal and the said decision does not suffer any infirmity in law otherwise since the weeklies of the petitioners are published from Shimla District only. It is also claimed that the facilities provided to the Press Correspondents under the Rules are merely concessions and privileges extended gratise by the State Government who have absolute powers to either curtail, vary or withdraw them at any time and that no one can claim such concessions or privileges as a matter of right and claims for being extended or accorded such privilages or benefits in a particular manner. 5. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the Respondents reiterated the respective stand taken, as indicated supra, in their pleadings at the time of arguments. 5. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sandeep Kaushik, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the Respondents reiterated the respective stand taken, as indicated supra, in their pleadings at the time of arguments. While doing so, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as long as the Respondents do not claim that the petitioners are not eligible to be granted State-level accreditation they cannot be heard to contend that it is for them to either grant or not the accreditation/recognition at the State-level. While meeting the stand taken by the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the Respondents, it is also contended for the petitioners that as long as the rules themselves do not provide for any cut-off date, as such, the Respondents cannot freeze the grant of State-level accreditation/recognition or from or up to a particular date and so long as the petitioners are eligible and could have been granted recognition, as in the case of other four editors to whom it has been shown to have been granted, there can be no denial of the claims of the petitioners. It was also contended that except for specific reasons to be assigned and ^hat too on the basis of the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioners for being granted with the State-level accreditation/recognition, the State cannot merely deny for the simple reason that they have resolved not to grant hereafter the State level accreditation/recognition in favour of weeklies published from District Headquarters. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on either side relied upon some of the decisions to which a reference can be made hereinafter. Strong reliance has been placed for the petitioners on the decision reported in (1981) 4 SCC 335, Air India v. Nergesh Meerza and others, in support of the claim based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That was a case wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with a challenge to a provision providing different years of age limit for Air Hostesses serving in the Indian Airlines Corporation and those fixed by the Air India. Yet another issue which came up for consideration is with reference to a provision providing for retirement of Air Hostess on her marriage taking place within four years or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier. Yet another issue which came up for consideration is with reference to a provision providing for retirement of Air Hostess on her marriage taking place within four years or on first pregnancy, whichever occurs earlier. The Apex Court in dealing with these aspects of challenge held that unreasonableness or arbitrariness could by itself be a ground to strike down a provision or an order or decision taken even if the .same is not discriminatory. No exception could be taken to this well settled proposition often restated at any rate after 1974 by the Apex Court that Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes not only against discrimination among equals or equality among unequals but also against absolute arbitrariness and unreasonableness in State action. The question will be only as to how far the said principle can be used to the benefit of the petitioners in this case in support of their claim. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents brought to our notice the decision reported in 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 182, RG. Gupta v. State of Gujarat and others. It was observed therein as hereunder while dealing with the cut-off date chosen to meet out differential treatment on account of change of policy:— "It is seen that after the capita! was shifted to Ahmedabad, these houses were allotted to Government employees. That came with the shifting of the capital. Initially, on 17.4.1971, 200 houses were got converted from rental basis scheme to the hire purchase scheme. Thereafter, the Government reconsidered the matter and by resolution dated 22.6.1972, resolved to allot all the 396 houses to the Government employees on hire purchase scheme. Thus, the diversion, became compulsive necessity. Therefore, the High Court has taken the criteria of 22.6.1972 as the last date for fixing the entitlement for the priorities, mentioned in the offending resolutions and allotment of the houses to the Government employees. It is true, that a date has to be fixed with reference to a particular case and fixation of any date always may appear to be arbitrary. But some connection has .to be established for fixation of the date for allotment of the houses. In this case, since the Government had taken decision on 22.6.1972 to convert the rental basis scheme into hire purchase scheme that date bears rational relation to the object of allotment. But some connection has .to be established for fixation of the date for allotment of the houses. In this case, since the Government had taken decision on 22.6.1972 to convert the rental basis scheme into hire purchase scheme that date bears rational relation to the object of allotment. Therefore, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational offending Article 14 of the Constitution." 8. In (1996) 2 SCC 97, UP Kattha Factories Association v. State of UP. and others, the Apex Court considered the reasonableness or otherwise of the adoption of a cut-off date by the State banning registration of small scale units on or after a particular date for allotment of forest produce on account of non-availability of the required forest produce while entitling the small scale-units registered prior to that date to be considered for allotment. While repelling the challenge of arbitrariness or the question of discrimination, the Apex Court held as follows: ~ "4. It is contended for the appellant that the Government having allowed other units to obtain chair wood from the Government quota, denial of the same to SI units registered under provisional registration would be discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the 0 Counsel and the argument of Shri Mehta, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for our interference. It is seen,* as stated in the counter filed in this Court, that the Government had constituted a committee to which the Secretary, Forest was the chairperson It had met on 13.12.1990 and had decided that small scale units registered prior to 11.12.1986 were entitled to be considered for allotment and any unit registered thereafter would be allowed to operate only subject to their obtaining required, wood from outside the State. It is seen that in view of non-availability of the forest produce in the State of U.P., the Government constituted a committee and the Secretary, Forest Department was its chairperson. They had gone into the question of availability and allotment of khair wood in the State. They have imposed a cut off date, i.e. 11.12.1986 and allotment would be made, subject to the availability of forest produce, to those industries established prior to the aforesaid date. They had gone into the question of availability and allotment of khair wood in the State. They have imposed a cut off date, i.e. 11.12.1986 and allotment would be made, subject to the availability of forest produce, to those industries established prior to the aforesaid date. It is trues as stated in the order passed by the Director, that SI units registered after 12.9.1983, were allowed registration by proceedings dated 25.2.1984 with a condition that they will not apply for UP. Forest Wood, and they would get it from outside the State. Even in respect of such industries it was also further stated that though the Director of Industries granted provisional registration, it would only be until or before 11.12.1986. In other words, complete ban on registration of SI units was imposed on or after 11.12.1986 for allotment of the forest produce required for industries. 5. Under these circumstances, it being a policy decision we do not think that it would be a case for our interference. The High Court has rightly declined to exercise its powers." Replying upon a decision of a Division Bench of Mysore High Court reported in AIR 1968 Mys 251, T. Venkatasubbiah Setty v. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore and others, the learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that an allegation of discrimination cannot be considered, as alleged by the petitioners, when the persons alleged to have been benefited by the discriminatory treatment are not impleaded as party-Respondents to the proceedings. In our view, it is unnecessary to reject this writ petition on this ground of non-impleading of four editors of the weeklies, who have been accorded earlier State-level accreditation/recognition for the reason that not only as contended for the petitioners the grievance of the petitioners is not that they should not have been grantee! and in their place the petitioners should have been granted but on the other hand their claim is that like those four persons granted, they should also be granted. and in their place the petitioners should have been granted but on the other hand their claim is that like those four persons granted, they should also be granted. We find such objection raised for the Respondents not tenable also for the reason that it is not the case of the petitioners that four persons who have already granted are ineligible for being granted such accreditation or recognition and that if they are eliminated from the range or area of consideration, the petitioners should have been granted or that the petitioners should have been granted in preference to those four persons the State level accreditation or recognition. Hence, the objection in this regard at the instance of the learned Counsel for the Respondents shall stand rejected. 9. So far as the merit of the claims and contentions of the parties and the right claimed by the petitioners, is concerned, we are of the view that the petitioners have wholly misconceived their rights and their assumption of so called entitlement has no basis in law. There can be no two opinions on the stand taken by the Respondents that the Rules made in question are merely administrative instructions or guidelines to ensure existence of a set norm or uniform procedure or uniformity in consideration of the claims under the guidelines by the Press Accreditation Committee. They are not rules having statutory force and those rules also cannot be considered to confer any absolute or legally protected rights enforceable in Courts of law and nothing precludes or prevents the Government at any time not only to scrap the rule too, as also abandon the scheme of accreditation/recognition be at a State level or District level and deny any one beyond or after a particular date line the privilages or benefits or perquisites that have been proposed to be conferred under the scheme, since no one for that matter be it the petitioners or any one who have been granted or have considered for future grant has any vested right or legally protected right either for accreditation or recognition or grant of ever so many facilities, perquisites, which involve in our view substantial financial commitments and burden to the State and on its coffers. That being the position, it is not only a matter of gratis but the concession or extension of such benefits, privileges and perquisites being mere matters of policy depending upon the exigencies of a situation, the policy of the Government and the subjective opinion formed about the need or necessity for extending such facilities and courtesy at or beyond a given point of time or in a given circumstance to a set or class or group of persons cannot be the subject-matter of a claim enforceable in a writ petition. Viewed in this context and the financial commitments involved in the implementation of the scheme, we are of the view that State Government is at liberty to take a policy decision not to grant any State level accreditation/recognition in respect of a particular class or category of Journals or persons representing such Journals when such accreditation or recognition involves higher honours, greater financial commitments and responsibilities as well as burden on the State coffers. In this case, factually it could be seen that subsequent to 1980 no fresh accreditation even provisionally appears to have been granted to any one of the weeklies at State level and at any rate after 1986 not even any recognition of such permanent or regular accreditation has been given to weeklies published at Districts, State Level accreditation. As long as this policy is uniformly adhered to and enforced not only the petitioners could not make out any plea of discrimination but we fail to see any arbitrariness or unreasonableness involved in the move of the Government taking such a decision guided by the advise of the Press Accreditation Committee also. Merely because a person is eligible in terms beneficial scheme formulated on an administrative side, which is more in the nature of a gesture of gratis, as long as he has no legally protected or vested right to be granted with such a particular status or credit of accreditation and recognition and so long as there is no discriminatory treatment meted out in view of the uniform policy or method or principle adopted after a particular point of time the petitioners cannot make any legal grievance in a Court of law and that too in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a scheme for such benefit, which has not the backing or support or basis in law. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit in the claim made on behalf of the petitioners. The writ petition, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.