JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.— Respondent-Corporation (hereafter shortly Corporation) has been constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Castes Development Corporation Act, 1979 For the purpose of carrying out its functions, it has power to appoint such Officers and employees as may be considered necessary. Under section 37, it has framed the Himachal Pradesh Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1980 According to the petitioner, it is neither controlled nor owned by the State. The general superintendence direction and management of the affairs of business is vested in the Board of Directors. Its functions are public in nature, therefore, it is an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India so amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor in the Social and Womens Welfare Department. She was posted in the office of Child Development Project Officer, (C. D. P O), Dharampur, District Solan. By order dated September 21, 1991, she was appointed as Development Assistant on deputation basis in this Corporation. It is also mentioned in this order that the general terms of deputation would be applicable to her and her deputation would be till March 31, 1992 for the time being. Consequently, the petitioner joined this Corporation and by office order dated December 6, 1991 of General Manager it is mentioned that she would be entitled to salary of Rs 1,800 per month from October 1, 1991. Her deputation was extended by the Corporation from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993 through office order dated April 6, 1992 3. By order dated April 21, 1992, the Corporation fixed the salary of the petitioner at Rs. 1,725 per month instead of fixing her in the pay scale of Rs, 1800-3200. Again, the deputation of the petitioner was extended from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993 by order dated April 24, 1992. The salary of the petitioner was increased from Rs. 1,725 to Rs 1,760 by order of the Corporation and the deputation period of the petitioner was also extended from April lf 1993 to March 31, 1994 by office order dated March 23, 1993. Later, her salary was again increased from Rs. 1,760 to Rs 1,800 by order dated October 8, 1993. 4. 1,725 to Rs 1,760 by order of the Corporation and the deputation period of the petitioner was also extended from April lf 1993 to March 31, 1994 by office order dated March 23, 1993. Later, her salary was again increased from Rs. 1,760 to Rs 1,800 by order dated October 8, 1993. 4. Through office order dated February 15, 1994, the Corporation absorbed the petitioner permanently in its services against the post of Development Assistant in the pay scale of Rs 1500-2640 with immediate effect According to order dated December 6, 1991 (Annexure PC), the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 and not in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 The pay scale of Development Assistant in the Corporation is Rs. 1800-3200 and not Rs. 1500-2640. The later pay scale is granted to the categories other than Development Assistants. 5. By office order dated March 3, 1994 of General Manager of the Corporation, it is pointed out that the petitioners service conditions would be regulated by the Rules and Regulations which are applicable to other employees of the Corporation and the petitioner would be posted as Junior Accountant/Junior Assistant/Regional Assistant at any place. This office order is wrong to the extent that the petitioner had been absorbed in the Corporation as Development Assistant (Annexure PE), therefore, she could not be posted in a lower post The facts were brought to the notice of the Corporation including the fact that since she had been observed as Development Assistance, there could be no posting of hers in a lower post and scale, 6. The petitioner was informed by letter dated March 28, 1994 regarding option for permanent absorption in the Corporation and the same would be considered her resignation from the Department. The petitioner further submits that she was always ready and willing to be absorbed in the Corporation but she was aggrieved by the conditions in the office order dated March 3, 1994 (Annexure PF). The petitioner further submits that she was always ready and willing to be absorbed in the Corporation but she was aggrieved by the conditions in the office order dated March 3, 1994 (Annexure PF). She further clarified her position by letter dated April 11, 1994, referring to letter dated March 28, 1994 that the conditions imposed in letter No. S. C. D C. (B) (3) 337/91, dated March 3, 1994 (Annexure PF) were not agreeable to her, The petitioner was legitimately expecting that since she had already been absorbed permanently by office order dated February 15, 1994 (Annexure PE), the Corporation could not create any impediments in the discharge of her duties against the post of Development Assistant, but to the contrary, by office order dated May 17, 1994, the office order dated March 3, 1994 has been cancelled and the petitioner has been repatriated to her parent department from May 31, 1994 (Annexure PI). After the issuance of office order dated May 17, 1994, the petitioner proceeded on medical/earned leave from May 31, 1994 to Sept. 9, 1994 and resumed her duties on September 12, 1994 at Solan. In office order dated February 15, 1994 (Annexure PE) the petitioner has been absorbed as Development Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640, but in order dated March 3, 1994 f Annexure PF) the status of the petitioner as Development Assistant has not been reflected. It was pointed out to the Corporation by letter dated May 21, 1991 that the petitioner had not rejected the order dated February 15, 1994 but had raised objection with regard to the conditions laid down in office order dated March 3, 1994 (Annexure PF) alone. Since she had been absorbed by office order dated February 15, 1994, after getting formal approval from her parent department, she would be tendering her resignation from that Department. Petitioners medical leave from May 31, 1994 to July 29, 1994 and earned leave from July 31» 1994 to September 9, 1994 were sanctioned by order dated October 7, 1994 (Annexure PK). Without considering the representation of the petitioner dated September 9, 1994, the Corporation issued office order dated November 9, 1994 relieving the petitioner from the Corporation from this date. Without considering the representation of the petitioner dated September 9, 1994, the Corporation issued office order dated November 9, 1994 relieving the petitioner from the Corporation from this date. The petitioner did not receive office order dated November 9, 1994 officially and has proceeded on medical leave and continued to avail it till the date of filing of this writ petition. She apprehends that she would be placed under suspension by the respondents for not joining her parent department on the basis of orders dated May 17, 1994 and November 9, 1994 (Annexures PI and PM). 7. The petitioner has submitted that she has been absorbed permanently as Development Assistance in the Corporation, therefore, the Corporation could not impose conditions dated March 3, 1994. She cannot be prevented by the Corporation from discharging the duties of Development Assistant. Conditions in office order dated March 3, 1994 (Annexure PF) are illegal The pay scale of Development Assistant in the Corporation is Rs. 1800-3200 and not Rs 1500-2640 which is applicable to Junior Accountants/Junior Assistants/Regional Assistants etc and the petitioner has already been granted pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 by order dated April 21, 1992 (Annexure PD) which cannot be reduced. When once the petitioner has been absorbed permanently, her absorption could not be cancelled by order dated May 17, 1994 nor could she be relieved by order dated November 9, 1994 (Annexure PM). 8. The Corporation has stated the objects for which it has been established and it has been admitted that it is discharging public importance functions closely related to Government functions and that the general superintendence, directions and management of the affairs and business of the Corporation are vested in the Board of Directors consisting of ten Directors nominated by the State Government which has power to remove these Directors from the office. The State Government meets the expenses incurred upon the establishment of the staff and other administrative wages It is fully owned and controlled by the Government which provides the entire capital and other financial assistance It executes the policies of the State Government which has deep and pervasive control over the Corporation Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition of this nature and the matter can be decided by the State Administrative Tribunal. This objection was not pressed during the course of hearing of this petition, therefore, further averments pointed out in the reply need not be narrated. 9. The petitioner did not disclose the fact that she withdrew the petition from the State Administrative Tribunal (O. A. No 3005/94) when she failed to obtain favourable order. It has been emphatically denied that the petitioner was appointed as Development Assistant. No such post exists with the Corporation (Annexure R/2). At the time when the petitioner joined the Corporation on deputation, inadvertantly and due to error in her appointment letter, the name of the post was wrongly mentioned as "Development Assistant" when, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was assigned the duties of the post of an Assistant lying vacant in the Development Branch. The bona fide mistake committed by the Corporation does not, in any manner, entitle the petitioner to the benefit she is claiming of being appointed as Development Assistant. After her joining the Corporation against the post of Assistant in the Development Branch, she requested for the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 by her letter of October 31, 1991 which scale is applicable to the category of Assistants in the Corporation (Annexure R/3-A). Accordingly, fixation of her pay was done pursuant to her request at the rate of Rs. 1,800 per month (Annexure PC). However, at a later stage, the case of the petitioner was referred to the State Government for the purpose of pay fixation and the Finance Department vide letter No. Fin (C) (B) (12)-1/91, dated December 26, 1991 advised the Corporation to fix the pay of the petitioner in accordance with her own pay scale in the parent department plus 15% of the basic pay or Rs. 200 whichever is higher. As in her parent department the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs. 1,500 as per last pay certificate issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Dharampur, District Solan (Annexure R/4-A), therefore, the petitioner was rightly placed at Rs. 1,725 (Annexure PD). 10. Regarding increase in the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs 1,725 to Rs. 1,760 and from Rs. 1,760 to Rs. 1,800 it has been submitted that the same was done because of annual increments earned at the rate of Rs. 35 and Rs. 40 respectively on two occasions. 1,725 (Annexure PD). 10. Regarding increase in the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs 1,725 to Rs. 1,760 and from Rs. 1,760 to Rs. 1,800 it has been submitted that the same was done because of annual increments earned at the rate of Rs. 35 and Rs. 40 respectively on two occasions. The decision of absorption of the petitioner was against the posts of Junior Auditor/Junior Assistant/Field Assistant/Junior Accountant carrying equal pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640 which was also the pay scale of the post of Supervisor which the petitioner was occupying in her parent department, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to absorption against the equivalent post mentioned hereinbefore and not against a higher post of Assistant in a borrowing department. In the present case, as the petitioner was working against the post of Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640, she was entitled to be absorbed against the posts carrying this pay scale. However, inadvertantly vide order dated February 15, 1994 (Annexure PE), the petitioner was shown to be absorbed against the post of Assistant, wrongly mentioned as "Development Assistant" in the Development Branch. However, her pay scale on absorption was rightly mentioned as Rs 1500 2640 in which scale she could be absorbed rightly. AH other submissions to the contrary have been strongly repudiated. It is only when an Assistant is deployed in Department Branch, he is commonly called "Development Assistant" and if deployed in establishment branch, he is called "Establishment Assistant" and in case he is posted in store, he is called "Store Assistant". As a matter of fact, there is no post of Development Assistant in the Corporation, therefore, there could be no appointment of the petitioner in the capacity of Development Assistant. The designation intended to be conveyed by the petitioner is not existing in the establishment of the Corporation. 11. To the order dated March 28, 1994, the petitioner replied by letter dated April 11, 1994 that the terms and conditions mentioned for her absorption in order dated March 3, 1994 were not acceptable to her. The designation intended to be conveyed by the petitioner is not existing in the establishment of the Corporation. 11. To the order dated March 28, 1994, the petitioner replied by letter dated April 11, 1994 that the terms and conditions mentioned for her absorption in order dated March 3, 1994 were not acceptable to her. She requested that her parent department be also informed in this behalf which was pressing hard for taking necessary action about the absorption of the petitioner since she was temporary in her parent department against the post of Supervisor and according to her parent department, in the event of her absorption in the Corporation she would have to tender resignation from the post of Supervisor. That is why, the Corporation directed the petitioner to convey her option to the extent that in the event of her permanent absorption in the Corporation, it shall amount to her resigning from her parent department. In answer to this, the petitioner informed the Corporation that the terms and conditions of absorption were not acceptable to her and her parent department may be informed accordingly. Consequently, the petitioner had to repatriate, Although the petitioner was ordered to be absorbed vide order dated February 15, 1994 (Annexure PE), yet later on, in continuation of order dated March 3, 1991 (Annexure PF) of the Corporation, it was made clear to the petitioner that on her absorption in the Corporation, the services of the petitioner would be governed by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees of the Corporation as she could not be considered as a distinct class in the services of the Corporation to the other employees Therefore, there was nothing wrong in the issuance of order dated March 3, 1994 (Annexure PF). The petitioner refused to accept the terms and conditions of absorption as well as the condition imposed by her parent department, she was rightly repatriated by the Corporation. Being on deputation, the petitioner has no vested right to remain with the Corporation on deputation and get absorption that too against the terms and conditions offered to her. 12. Pursuant to the repatriation order, the petitioner was relieved from the service of the Corporation from November 9, 1994 an (Annexure PM), Till this date, the administrative control over the petitioner continued to remain with the Corporation and, therefore, the leave was granted to her. 12. Pursuant to the repatriation order, the petitioner was relieved from the service of the Corporation from November 9, 1994 an (Annexure PM), Till this date, the administrative control over the petitioner continued to remain with the Corporation and, therefore, the leave was granted to her. It is pointed out that after the repatriation of the petitioner by order dated May 17, 1994 (Annexure PI) from May 31, 1994, her parent department has already issued her posting order on September 2, 1994 (Annexure R/1) and the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the Corporation at the time of making representation (Annexure PJ), therefore, her claim could not be looked into. The contention that the relieving order was not received by the petitioner officially, has been denied and it has been stated that on November 9, 1994 while the petitioner was in the office, Shri Lachhi Ram, Peon was directed to serve the order (Annexure PM) on the petitioner. The Peon was asked to keep the Peon-Book and the order on her table telling that she would receive the same just then but the Peon was engaged in some other work, namely, providing of drinking water to other employees in the Branch and soon the petitioner was not found there nor the letter was received by her. The non-receipt of the letter (Annexure PM) is intentional and deliberate on her part but she had the knowledge of it right from November 9, 1994 onwards. All other pleas raised by the petitioner have been seriously disputed and denied by the Corporation, 13. Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, forcefully contended that the petitioner has been permanently absorbed as Development Assistant in the Corporation by order dated February 15, 1994 (Annexure PE) and the conditions mentioned in order dated March 3, 1994 (Annexure PF) could not be imposed. The petitioner deserves to be absorbed as Development Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 and offer of absorbing her in junior post with lesser pay scale is unreasonable and arbitrary After having been absorbed, she could not be relieved to take up the assignment in the parent department. Reliance was placed on 1995 Lab 1C 613, T. Shontaram v. State of Karnataka and others. 14. Mrs. 1800-3200 and offer of absorbing her in junior post with lesser pay scale is unreasonable and arbitrary After having been absorbed, she could not be relieved to take up the assignment in the parent department. Reliance was placed on 1995 Lab 1C 613, T. Shontaram v. State of Karnataka and others. 14. Mrs. Abbilasha Kumari, appearing for the Corporation, vehemently asserted that the petitioner could not take benefit of the mistake committed by the Corporation describing her "Development Assistant*. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was posted as an Assistant in the Development Branch of the Corporation The petitioner could not be brought on deputation on a post higher than the one held by her in the parent department, nor was that intention of the borrowing department Further, no post of Development Assistant existed in the Corporation, therefore, no absorption could be allowed against a non-existing post. The petitioner stands relieved from the Corporation and her parent department has also ordered her posting. 15. Having considered the whole matter carefully, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the plea taken by the petitioner. T. Shantharams case (supra), turns on its own facts. The petitioner had been on deputation in the department for nearly 32 years and had not been given any proforma promotion in the parent department Although the plea that he could not be brought on deputation to a higher post has been accepted, yet the relief has been extended to him for the reason that he had worked on deputation uninterruptedly, accepting that initially the petitioner might have been deputed tcf hold higher post mistakenly in the borrowing department, but he having discharged his duties and higher responsibilities to the satisfaction of all concerned, it would be highly unjust at that distance of time to send him back to hold the post in the parent department which he was entitled to hold. 16 From the other side, reliance has been placed on AIR 1990 SC 1132, Ratilal B. Soni and others v. State of Gujarat and others. In this case, the petitioners were originally appointed as Talatis-cum-Mantries in the Revenue Department of State of Gujarat. Under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, which came into force from April I, 1963, Panchayat Service was constituted and under the Act all the posts of Talatis alongwith the incumbents stood transferred to the Panchayat Service. In this case, the petitioners were originally appointed as Talatis-cum-Mantries in the Revenue Department of State of Gujarat. Under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, which came into force from April I, 1963, Panchayat Service was constituted and under the Act all the posts of Talatis alongwith the incumbents stood transferred to the Panchayat Service. On that date, there was a cadre of Circle Inspectors in the State Service which was bifurcated and 50% of the posts continued in the State Service and the remaining 50% were transferred to the Panchayat Service. The petitioners were sent on deputation as Circle Inspectors in the State cadre. In January 1986, qualified officials became available for promotion to the posts of Circle Inspectors in the State cadre and as such the petitioners were reverted to their parent cadre of Talatis in the Paochayat Service They challenged the reversion before the High Court primarily on the ground that their options for absorption in the State Service were pending with the State Government which was bound to decide the same in their favour. The question for consideration was whether the petitioners had right to be absorbed in the cadre of Circle Inspectors. The High Court rejected their case holding that there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioners gave any option to be absorbed in the State cadre It was also found that they being on deputation, had no legal right to absorb in the State Service. The matter went before the Apex Court which held that (para 5# p 1133) : "5. The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post........." 17. The petitioner was holding the post of Supervisor in her parent department. Obviously, she was to be taken on deputation on a comparable post with same pay scale alongwlth other permissible allowances available to a deputationist Therefore, her pay was settled by order dated April 21, 1992 and the higher scale was not admissible to her. With respect to order dated February 15, 1994, it has rightly been pointed out that she was inadvertantly shown to have been absorbed against the post of Development Assistant instead of the post in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640. With respect to order dated February 15, 1994, it has rightly been pointed out that she was inadvertantly shown to have been absorbed against the post of Development Assistant instead of the post in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2640. When there is no post of Development Assistant in the Corporation, there could be no absorption of the petitioner in the Corporation as Development Assistant She could be absorbed against a comparable post with the scale she was getting in the parent department Consequently, perusal of all the relevant material plainly demonstrates that the petitioner could not be absorbed as Development Assistant in the pay scale of Rs 1800-3200 and the Corporation had committed a bonafide and genuine mistake on this aspect. It is well-settled that a mistake cannot confer any vested right on a person since mistake once committed cannot be allowed to be perpetuated after it is noticed. 18. Claim of the petitioner that when once she was absorbed by the Corporation, no further order emboding defeating conditions could be issued, is equally unsustainable. This order cannot be read in isolation and in case it is read with other following orders, the net result is that the petitioner did not accept the terms and conditions of her absorption with the result that she had to be repatriated to her parent department. Even otherwise, she being on deputation, had no right of absorption in the Corporation. Factually speaking, her repatriation to her parent department has come into effect having been relieved by the Corporation by office order dated November 9, 1994 and the contention that she did not receive the relieving order officially, is hardly satisfactory and is rejected. 19. Lastly, it was contended that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner had no right of absorption in the Corporation and she stands relieved, in that event direction may be issued to respondents 2 and 3 to allow her to resume duties in her parent department and the absence from duty be regulated by granting her leave and in case the same is not admissible to her from all kinds of leave, the absence be condoned in the facts and circumstances of this case. We allow this prayer and direct respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to join in the parent department in case she has not done so by this time. We allow this prayer and direct respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to join in the parent department in case she has not done so by this time. The period from November 9, 1994 be regulated by allowing her all kinds of leaves available to her including balance from Corporation and in case some period still remains to be covered, the same be condoned in the facts and circumstances of this case. 20. No other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the parties. 21. The result, therefore, is that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed except as to the directions to respondents 2 and 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.