(1) RESPONDENT 3, who was sought to be served refused to accept the service. This be treated as good service. (2) RESPONDENT 3 filed OA No. 1908 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench seeking declaration and certain other reliefs namely that the Draft Recruitment Rules pertaining to the post of Radio Supervisor (Operations) Grade I were illegal and unconstitutional; to set aside the order of the second respondent in OA dated 14-8-1993 appointing Respondents 3 to 5 therein as Radio Supervisors (Operations) Grade I; to direct Respondents 1 and 2 to promote him (the applicant in OA) as Radio Supervisor (Operations) Grade I with effect from 14-8-1993 with all consequential benefits. (3) THE present appellants were not the parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT). Since the Tribunal has rendered verdict in favour of the applicant in OA they have filed this civil appeal with leave of the Court. (4) IT is common premise that the appointments/promotions of the appellants before us and other similarly situated persons were purely on ad hoc and temporary basis. The very impugned order itself states: "PROMOTIONS of Respondents 3 to 5 inasmuch as they are only termed as purely temporary and ad hoc, may stand unless it be necessary to terminate the deputation of the juniormost among them in the post of Radio Supervisor (Operations) Grade I in order to make room for promotion of the applicant. The ad hoc service that they have rendered as Radio Supervisor (Operations) shall not count for seniority in the said cadre above the applicant." (5) FROM the very nature of the promotion orders it is clear that these are ad hoc and purely on temporary basis. (6) NONE of the counsel appearing before us were able to tell the Court as to whether these Draft Rules were approved by the appropriate authority. The Tribunal has set aside the Draft Rules as being unconstitutional. This finding in our opinion was totally uncalled for being premature since the Government had not approved the Draft Rules and they remained only Draft Rules. This finding is set aside. Pending approval thereof it appears that Respondents 3 to 5 before the Tribunal were given ad hoc promotions. The Tribunal has set aside the Draft Rules as being unconstitutional. This finding in our opinion was totally uncalled for being premature since the Government had not approved the Draft Rules and they remained only Draft Rules. This finding is set aside. Pending approval thereof it appears that Respondents 3 to 5 before the Tribunal were given ad hoc promotions. Without disturbing such ad hoc promotions, we only state that it is for the Government/appropriate authority to consider as to whether the Draft Rules be approved or not or to frame fresh rules. In this view of the matter question of granting promotion to the applicant in OA would not arise. OA No. 1908 of 1993 to stand dismissed being premature. (7) THE appeal to stand disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.