1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 13.12.2017 whereby her promotion to the post of Varistha Adhyapak which was by order dated 25.11.2017 has been cancelled.

3. Initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in the year 1999 and was regularized on the said post with effect from 23.10.2002 by order dated 24.6.2003. The petitioner, therefore, was designated as Adhyapak and was granted the benefit of first krammonati by order dated 19.9.2012. That by order dated 25.11.2017, the petitioner was promoted as Varistha Adhyapak. It was this order which has been withdrawn vide impugned order. The reason which finds mention therein is that, with the quashment of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Padonnati) Rules, 2002 by the High Court in W.P. No. 1942/2011 vide its order dated 30.4.2016 and in an SLP (c) No. 13954/2016 preferred thereagainst status quo was ordered by Supreme Court on 12.5.2016; as a result whereof all the promotions in the State were stayed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents are justified in withdrawing the promotion and secondly whether incumbent it was upon the respondents to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before withdrawing the promotion order.

6. So far as the first aspect is concerned as to whether the employer would be within their authority to correct the mistake. In other words, if error is committed while promoting a person, can such error be corrected by unsettling the promotion order.

7. Trite it is that the promotion, which imbibes advancement in rank, grade or both, is a normal incidence of service Please See : Dr. M.S. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India and others [AIR 1990 SC 311]. The true effect whereof, however, depends on the nature of right created under the rules, which invariably preserve the employer prerogative of choice; therefore, it is said that an employee has only a right of consideration but not a right of promotion. Please See: T.R. Kapur and others v. State of Haryana and others [AIR 1987 SC 415].

8. Since promotion is not a right and the same being an administrative function. In this context reference can be had of a decision by Supreme Court wherein their lordships were pleased to hold. [Please see National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences v. Dr. K.Kalyan Raman and Ors.(AIR 1992 SC 1806, Paragraph 7).]. That, there exist the possibility of committing of administrative mistake. If there is a mistake the same has to be corrected (A quash-judicial or judicial error also could be rectified by exercising the power of review.).

9. Question is whether such a mistake would create a vested right in favour of the person/persons who are benefited by such mistake. In considered opinion of this Court if due to mistake some benefit is extended in favour of person/persons not eligible for such benefit there is no accrual of right. In Union of India and another v. Narendra Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 750], it is observed :

“32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In Indian Council of Agricultural Research and anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan and ors., (1997) 6 SCC 766, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore Statutory Rules.”

10. Thus, no right accrues on the basis of a mistaken order and the same can be undone.

11. The next question is whether such an error can be corrected without affor-ding an opportunity of hearing to an employee who is