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 under Rule 18 of the Rules by petitioner to contend that select list was prepared by D. P. C. which was valid in respect of vacancies likely to arise during the course of year. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for Corporation. However, his stand is that no select list was prepared by the D. P. C. to consider cases of likely vacancies during the year. Recommendations were made only for six posts for which vacancies existed and therefore, question of select list being operative does not arise. Materials brought on record substantiate this stand. Rule 18 reads foliows : "18. Promotion Committee A promotion committee shall be constituted for each grade or grades as indicated below, (a) Grade I and Grade II posts Chairman (i) Chairman of the Board Members (ii) A Sectional head nominated by the Chairman. Materials brought on record substantiate this stand. Rule 18 reads foliows : "18. Promotion Committee A promotion committee shall be constituted for each grade or grades as indicated below, (a) Grade I and Grade II posts Chairman (i) Chairman of the Board Members (ii) A Sectional head nominated by the Chairman. iii) Concerned Sectional head under whom the vacancy exists. (b) Grade III and Grade IV posts. Chairman (i) Secretary/General Manager of the OMC. Members (ii) Concerned Administrative Officer. (iii) Concerned Sectional Head. The promotion committee shall meet as and when necessary and prepare a select list of employees fit for promotion on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority against vacancies in the various grades of posts. The select list prepared shall be utilised for filling up vacancies likely to arise during the course of the year. An employee who is not found fit at a meeting of the Committee, shall not be passed over in subsequent meeting simply because he was not found fit at an earlier meeting. Such can employee should invariably be considered afresh at next meeting along with other eligible persons. Any employee who is aggrieved by an order of promotion on the ground, that he has been superseded, may represent his case to the appointing authority through proper channel, within one month of the issue of promotion order. In case the aggrieved employee is on leave, he should represent within one month of his joining date. A decision on his representation should be conveyed to him within one month of his representation, If not satisfied with the decision of the concerned authority, he may prefer an appeal to the next higher authority, i. e. Chairman or Board, as the case may Be, within one month of the communication. The decision on his appeal should be given as early as possible." Since no select list was prepared in respect of any likely vacancy; the period of its currency is really of no consequence. It is trite law that no appointment can be made in respect of vacancy not notified. (See Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others Dilip Kumar Tripathy and others etc. Vs. State of Orissa and others, ; Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. It is trite law that no appointment can be made in respect of vacancy not notified. (See Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and Others Dilip Kumar Tripathy and others etc. Vs. State of Orissa and others, ; Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. : 1996 SCC 934; Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana : 1994 (Supp) 4 SCC 377, and State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asst. Successful Examinees Union (1994) SCC 126. Therefore, petitioner's stand that his initial promotion had legal sanctity has no basis. 7. Judged in the background indicated supra, impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant our interference However, undisputed position being that petitioner has rendered services for 3 years in promotional post, no recovery shall be made from his for additional emoluments received by him. It is open to petitioner to move the authorities for considering this period for continuity of service and other service benefits. If such a motion is made the same shall dealt with appropriately by the concerned authority in accordance with law. The writ application fails and is dismissed. No cost. S.N. Phukan, C.J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed