An employer has the inherent right to rectify a mistake in an appointment or promotion, and an employee has no right to a post or status merely because an officer has passed an order beyond his competence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner calls in question legality of order 0-4-1993 (Annexure-3) passed by the Chairman-com-Managing Director of the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to; as 'Corporation') directing his reversion to the post of Senior Assistant.

2. Challenge is made inter alia in the following background;

Petitioner joined the Corporation as Lower Division Clerk in the year, 1974 and subsequently promoted as, Senior Assistant. On 8-7-1990 Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'DPC') was constituted to consider cases of employee's for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer. At that point of time six vacancies existed. Procedure of promotion is laid down in The Orissa Mining Corporation Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1976 (in short, 'Rules'). Rule 5(9) defines a "Promotion Committee" to mean as follows:

5. .............

(g) "Promotion Committee means any Promotion Committee constituted by the Board of Directors or by the Chairman for the purpose of selecting candidates for promotion to, posts. In the service of the Corporation."

Cases of fifteen employees were considered. A select list was prepared as required under the Rules. D. P. C. recommended names of five persons under Unreserved category and one Scheduled Tribe candidate under Reserved category. Thus six persons were promoted. While the position stood thus by Office Order dated 6-9-1990 (Annexure -1) petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Officer. Subsequently by the impugned order, reversion has been directed.

3. Petitioner's stand in essence is that he was rated as "very good by the D. P. C. and was promoted when vacancies arose in September, 1990. Recommendation made by D. P. C. is valid for one year. As petitioner has worked for three years without any adverse comment, he has acquired a substantive right and reversion as directed is violative of principles of natural justice.

4. Stand of the Corporation is that promotion of petitioner to the post of Junior Administrative Officer by Officer Order dated 6-9-1990 was wholly in violation of prescriptions in the Rules. The D. P. C. had not recommended petitioner in 1990 and promotion can only be given only on the basis of recommendation made by D. P. C. That being the undisputed position petitioner cannot claim any equity, particularly when he has already been promoted to the post of Assistant Manager which was earlier designated as Junior 'Administrative Officer by Order dated 27-02-1993. Petitioner has not joined on Untenable grounds in spite of order of promotion, taking the stand that matter is subjudice. Such act is clearly an act of misconduct because no stay was granted, when this Court took up the matter for consideration on 13-5-1993.

5. Factual position is undisputed to the extent that D. P. C. had recommended only six names in respect of existing vacancies. Rules make it clear that recommendation by D. P. C. is necessary for the purpose of selecting candidates for promotion to the post in the service of the Corporation. Law is fairly well-settled that employer is not powerless to rectify mistake where an employee has no right to a post or to a particular status. An employee is not entitled to claim to have been validly appointed or given a particular status merely because an officer has passed an order beyond his competence giving the employee a status which he is hot entitled in law. Government and for that matter authority which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, has inherent right to rectify mistake committed by it. It is competent to cancel an earlier order 'promotion where person is promoted erroneously, because an authority can rectify the-error by correcting it and even if it results reversion, it cannot be termed as punishment because competence. Where promotion is granted on wrong of facts, subsequent reversion cannot be called in question unless it is shown that original order was valid.

6. Reliance has been placed un