JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The writ petitioners, through, casting, the instant petition, hence challenge, the, recruitment, and, appointment, on, secondment basis, of, the respondents concerned, vis-a-vis, the post of Senior Assistants, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, (a) and, the petitioners'' challenge, is, anvilled, upon, the afore recruitment, and, appointment, hence, on, secondment basis, of, the respondent concerned, against, the, post, of, Senior Assistants, (b) rather prejudicing, the, canons, embodied, in, the apt recruitment, and, promotion Rules, of, 2012, wherein, an, explicit stipulation exists, vis-a-vis, the Junior Assistants hence working in the establishment of respondent No.2, alone holding, an , absolute right, of, promotion, to, the higher thereto post, of, Senior Assistant. (i) Rules whereof, contemplate(s), vis-a-vis, a, cent per centum entitlement, of, the junior assistants, serving under the respondent No.2, to become promoted, to, the post, of, Senior Assistant. Consequently, the petitioners contend, that, the induction, on, secondment basis, of, respondents concerned, against, the, promotional post, of, Senior Assistant, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, undermining, or, jeopardizing, their rights, as, inhere, in, them, under, the afore Rules. Furthermore, thereonwards, the writ petitioner also agitate(s), that, in case, the, respondents concerned, are, absorbed as Senior Assistants, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, thereupon, in, the apposite seniority list, the, respondents concerned, being directed to place them, below the writ petitioners concerned, in, the appositely drawn seniority list. 2. However, the, afore alluded secondary relief, hence, would enjoin, an, adjudication becoming, made, thereon only, upon, the, petitioner extantly, holding, the, apposite post, of, Senior Assistant, along with the respondents concerned, who become absorbed, against, the, post, of, Senior Assistant, upon, theirs initially becoming inducted thereons, rather on a secondment basis, in purported compliance, of, the mandate, of, the hereafter extracted portion, of, the, apposite draft rules. Since the petitioners, are, not extantly serving, rather, as, Senior Assistants, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, thereupon, prima facie, at this stage, the, afore relief, cannot, become afforded, to, them. 3. Be that as it may, the core controversy, which has become aroused, inter se, the, contesting litigants, (a) is, grooved, in, its entirety, upon, the initial recruitment, and, appointment, on, secondment basis, of, the respondents concerned, by, respondent No.2, as, Senior Assistants, in, the establishment of respondent No.2, becoming or not becoming amenable, for, invalidation, (a) given its purportedly infringing, or, not infringing the mandate, of, the, afore Rules, of, 2012. For resting, the afore controversy, an, allusion, is, to be, made, to, the apt mandate hence occurring, in, the draft rules concerned, wherethrough, the mandate, of, the rule(s), of, 2012, as, relied, upon, by the petitioners prima facie does become repulsed, (b) and, wherein, an echoing exists, qua, the, contemplated mechanism, for, the appointment, and, recruitment, to, the post, of, Senior Assistants, hence, upon, the, afore vacancies, arising, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, becoming, comprised, in, a cent per centum, entitlement, becoming bestowed, upon, the, feeder category, of, junior assistants, hence rendering service, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2. The apposite mandate, of, the draft rule, is, extracted hereinafter:- 10 Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion deputation, transfer, and the percentage of posts to be filled in by various methods 100% by promotion failing which on secondment basis failing both by direct recruitment. However, the afore initial method of recruitment, to, the, vacancies, of, Senior Assistants, hence, arising, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, is, succeeded, by, an alternative thereto mechanism, comprised, in, upon, the afore contemplated, hence, initial mechanism lapsing, or failing, (i) thereupon, it being, open to, the ,respondent No.2, to, recourse, to, the alternative thereto, mechanism, of, making appointments, on, secondment basis, of the aspirants concerned, against, the post, of, Senior Assistants, as, arose or became vacant, for, being filled in, hence, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2. However, the afore controversy, does not, became rested thereons, as, the afore contemplated mechanism, only occurs, in, the draft rules, and, unless, the afore rules, became finalized, (ii) comprised, in theirs, being notified, thereupon, all the echoings, and, contemplations borne therein, hold no force, and, validity in law. However, the afore controversy, does not, became rested thereons, as, the afore contemplated mechanism, only occurs, in, the draft rules, and, unless, the afore rules, became finalized, (ii) comprised, in theirs, being notified, thereupon, all the echoings, and, contemplations borne therein, hold no force, and, validity in law. Conspicuously, if, the draft rules, are, acquiesced by overt acts, and, conducts, of, the respondent, to, hold force, also hence dehors, theirs remaining unnotified, they would hold their play, yet, the, core controversy, appertaining, to, the afore contemplation, borne in the draft rules, dehors, theirs remaining unnotified, and, also concomitantly, theirs hold no clout, hence, thereupto, (a) may become rested, through, an allusion being made, to, a verdict rendered, by the Hon''ble Apex Court, in, a case tilted, as, High Court of Gujrat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, (2003) 4 SCC 712 , relevant paragraph No.27 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "It is now trite that draft rules which are made to lie in a nascent state for a long time cannot be the basis for making appointment or recommendation. Rules even in their draft stage can be acted upon provided there is a clear intention on the part of the government to enforce those rules in the near future (See Vimal Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 4 SCC 114 )" (b) wherein it has become expostulated, qua, even when, the rules are at the draft stage, thereupon, their being, no, bar for theirs being relied, upon, and, acted upon, (c) upon, evidence surging forth, hence evincing rather, qua, the clear intention, of, the government, to, enforce those rules, in, the near future. Consequently, for the afore expostulation, of, law becoming hereat applied, visa-vis, the apt similar thereto factual scenario, prevailing hereat, (d) is, evidently rather displayed, by Annexure R/5A, wherein, echoings, are borne qua there being no eligible incumbent, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, for, his/theirs being promoted, to, the vacant posts of Senior Assistant, as, arose/arise, in, the establishment, of, the respondent, (e) hence, the, afore draft rules, within, the ambit, of, the afore expostulation of law, dehors, the, afore rules, remaining unpublished, and, unnotified, yet, held, their apt clout, and, play, also hence respondent No.2, could recourse them, (f) given, thereupon, respondent No.2 clearly evincing their intention to act, upon, the afore draft rules rather in future, (g) intention whereof also becomesmore abundantly displayed, by, Annexure R/G, wherein, echoings occur, vis-a-vis, respondent No.2, facing, an, acute shortage of staff, and, also besides thereto, a, communication, also, occurs therein, vis-a-vis, eight senior assistants hitherto rendering employment, in, the Directorate of High Education, acquiring sufficient experience, to man, the, works appertaining, to, the Senior Assistants, as, thereat available, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2, (h) and, thereafter, with, the, Secretary of respondent No.2, hence, seeking approval, of, the government for absorption, of, eight senior assistants hitherto rendering deployment, in, the Directorate of Higher Education, H.P., for, theirs becoming absorbed, against, the afore posts, hence, available with the H.P. Public Service Commission, (i) and, besides also whereafter, when the, afore asked for approval, become meted acquiescence, by, respondent No.1. (j) Consequently, all the afore annexure rather metes, an, abundant, and, also the completest satiation, vis-a-vis, the afore expostulation of law, occurring, in, paragraph No.27, of, the judgment supra, rendered, by, the Hon''ble Apex Court, in, Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat''s case, (k) and, hence, when the draft rules, were, intended to be acted, upon, in future, hence, dehors the draft rules, remaining unpublished, and, unnotified, would not, render them, to, hold no workability, vis-a-vis, the respondents concerned, who, became initially appointed, on, a secondment basis, as, senior assistants, in, the establishment, of, respondent No.2,and, whereat, the petitioners, were ineligible. Moreover, also the requisite inter se dichotomy inter se the, afore rules, and, vis-a-vis, the rules of 2012, also become(s) subsumed. 4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in, the extant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.