( 1 ) THE petitioner is a person holding the post of Senior Health Inspector under the State Govt on a substantive basis. His services were transferred to the Corcoration of the City of Bangalore which was considered as foreign service under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. While he was working a. s Senior Health Inspector under the Corporation, it passed a resolution on 30-12-1974 stating that the services of certain persons who were working in its Health Dept, including those of the petitioner, be absorbed in the Corporation by appointing them as the employees of the Corporation after obtaining the previous sanction of the State Govt as required under s. 89 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The State govt accorded its sanction to the said resolution by order d|. 6-5-75 (Ext. C ). On receipt of the said Govt Order, the Administrator of the Corporation who had assumed the duties by then wrote to the State Govt on 19--7-1975 stating that the question of absorption of the sixteen Senior health Inspectors, including the petitioner, might be deferred, in view of the fact that the uniform Municipal Service was about to be brought into force. On the basis of the said letter, the Govt passed the order d|. 25-8-1975 (Ext. D), impugned in this writ peitition, withdrawing its earlier order d. 6-5-1975. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition it was urged by Sri Murlidhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Govt had no competence to withdraw the order passed by it earlier by the impugned order d/. 25-8-75. He further, contended that by virtue of the resolution of the Corporation d. 30-12-74, the petitioner had become an employee of the Corporation. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that under the Karnataka Civil Service Rules there are provisions governing the conditions of service of persons holding civil posts under the Govt who are deputed to. work in foreign services, such as the Municipal Corporation. By merely transferring the services of its employee to a foreign service, the Govt would not lose all control over him. The conditions of service of a person transferred to foreign service are dealt with in Part VII, Chap. XXVI Foreign Service Rules of the karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958. It is relevant to refer, at this stage, to Rule 445. It reads thus : 445. The conditions of service of a person transferred to foreign service are dealt with in Part VII, Chap. XXVI Foreign Service Rules of the karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958. It is relevant to refer, at this stage, to Rule 445. It reads thus : 445. A Govt servant trasferred to foreign service remains, subject to the general and disciplinary rules which would have applied to him as a servant of Govt, had he not been so transferred. ( 4 ) A perusal of the several rules shows that a Govt servant, who is transferred to a foregin service, would not cease to be a servant of government merely by the order of transfer to the foreign service. His services can be recalled and he may be reposted in his substantive post. If a person jnnior to him in the substantive cadre is promted, the person who is deputed to foreign service is entitled to claim the benefit of 'next below' rule, viz, Rule 60. It is therefore clear that for all purposes, he continues to be a Government employee, subject to the rules referred to above. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH at one stage it was contended that the petitioner had become an employee of the Corporation on the date on which he was first transferred to the foreign service, Sri Murlidhar Rao gave up that part of the case in the course of his arguments. He however, maintained that by reason of the resolution of the Corporation passed on 30-12-1974, the petitioner had become a Corporation employee. It is difficult to accept the above argument. ( 6 ) UNTIL an officer is served with an order of appoinment, he cannot claim to have been appointed to any post. Admittedly, the Corporation has not informed the petitioner, after the sanction was accorded by the State govt, that he had been appointed as a regular employee of the Corporation and that he had ceased to be a servant of the Govt. The fact that the Corporation had, at an earlier stage, asked the petitioner whether he was willing to become its employee, would not also be of any assistance, because until the Corporation informs him that he had been appointed as its employee, he continues to be a Govt servant in foreign service notwithstanding the fact that he had expressed his consent. ( 7 ) THE order passed by the Govt d/. ( 7 ) THE order passed by the Govt d/. 6-5-1975 is an administrative order. It did not, on its own force, confer any rights on the petitioner. It was therefore, capable of being reviewed. On a reconsideration of the matter pursuant to the request made by the Administrator the Govt found that it was necessary to recall its earlier order and passed the impugned order. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that it had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it. ( 8 ) AS long as the petitioner has not acquired a right to a post in the regular service of the Corporation, it is open to the Govt to withdraw his services from the Corporation and the Corporation is also entitled to repatriate his services. The petitioner is not, in any way, prejudiced if his services are to be withdrawn from the Corporation, since he will be reposted to his substantive post under the Government. ( 9 ) THE two decisions, viz, K. R. Ramasanjeeviah v. State of Mysore WP. 1271/64 d/ 21-11-l966 and V. S. Parameshwara v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Mysore 1971 (1) Myslj, 378, on which reliance was placed by Sri Murlidhar Rao are of no assistance to the petitioner. They were cases arising out of certain inter-departmental transfers made by the Govt. They do not govern the case of transfer made by th govt of its employee to a foreign service. ( 10 ) IN the result this writ petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .