JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.3.2003 in O.A. No. 2350 of 1999 and the subsequent order dated 3.8.2005 in M.P. No. 479 of 2003 dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the State Public Health Laboratory had one vacancy of Junior Laboratory Assistant in the year 1996. The appointment authority, i.e., Deputy Direc¬tor-cum-Public Analyst (O.P. No.2) after taking approval of the opposite party no.1 invited applications from the outsiders for the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant indicating that the candidates aged not below 18 years and above 32 years as on 1.1.1996, having prescribed qualification, i.e., I.Sc. Or +2 Science may offer for the same. The advertisement was published in the daily newspaper ‘The Samaj” on 17.2.1996. The applicant applied for the said post and was called for the interview on 20.3.1997. It is stated that the petitioner has passed HSC, +2 Science and Bachelor degree Examinations with Science (Hons.) in Chemistry and also holds a diploma in P.G.D.C.A. It is stated that he has an excellent academic record. For the post, 159 candidates had applied; but the applicant secured the first position in the selection and accordingly vide memo no. 308 dated 16.3.1998 was appointed to the post of Junior Laboratory Assist¬ant in the State Public Health Laboratory in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040 with usual admissible D.A. and other allowances. In pursuance to the said letter of appointment the petitioner submitted his joining report on 16.3.1998 to the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant which was accepted by the authori¬ty. The further case of the petitioner is that he discharged his duties very sincere and honestly to the best satisfaction of the authority and during the course of employment, no adverse remark was communicated against his performance. It is the further case of the petitioner that despite his unblemished service career, all on a sudden on 16.11.1999 the petitioner’s service was termi¬nated by the O.P. No.2 vide office order no. 1195(2) dated 16.11.1999. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner preferred Original Application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with the prayer to quash the same and for re-instatement in service as Junior Assistant with all service benefits with an interim prayer to keep the order of termination passed by O.P. No.2 in abeyance. 1195(2) dated 16.11.1999. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner preferred Original Application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with the prayer to quash the same and for re-instatement in service as Junior Assistant with all service benefits with an interim prayer to keep the order of termination passed by O.P. No.2 in abeyance. The State Government took the stand that the post in question was not offered to be filled up and other posts under the Department were required for adjusting the surplus hands. Accordingly one surplus employ¬ee, namely, P.P. Satpathy was absorbed in the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant in the office of the Deputy Director. Since the vacancy has been utilized not by appointing any other fresh candidate, but only for adjustment of a surplus retrenched em¬ployee, no case of bias or undue favour is made out against the applicant. 3. Learned Chairman of the Tribunal as per the order dated 25.3.2003 hold that no directions can be given to the opposite party to reinstate the petitioner simply because the post in question is not vacant and is occupied by a surplus employee who was in Government service much before the applicant. 4. Assailing the order of the Tribunal learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to certain protection and his service cannot be terminated arbi¬trarily nor his service can be terminated in a punitive manner without applying the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that no letter of the Government instructing the Deputy Director-cum-Public Analyst not to fill up the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant is available. Only clearance given by the Government, is available. It is sub¬mitted that such a plea should not be given much weightage. 5. In a writ application for issue of a writ of certio¬rari, the High Court is not to enter into the facts of the case unless such facts were placed before the Tribunal whose order is impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this belated stage, is agitating the issue of non-existence of such a letter which was never canvassed before the learned Tribunal. The simple facts in this case are that the Health and Family Welfare Depart¬ment had directed the Deputy Director-cum-Public Analyst not to conduct the recruitment test in question as per their letter dated 20.3.1996. The simple facts in this case are that the Health and Family Welfare Depart¬ment had directed the Deputy Director-cum-Public Analyst not to conduct the recruitment test in question as per their letter dated 20.3.1996. Though the advertisement was brought before the communication was issued, the interview was conducted much after that. Though the O.P. No. 2 was instructed by the Government not to fill up the post, he proceeded with the recruitment. It is settled that the State Government is the employer though the O.P. No.2 may be the appointing authority. The State Government has the discretion to fill up the certain post or not by employing the employees whose posts have been retrenched. The appointment of the petitioner is, therefore, without any authority or without the sanction of the Government. Thus the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Laboratory Assistant is illegal and any illegal order may be withdrawn without issuing notice to party. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of Union of India and others v. Bikash Kuanar, (2006) 8 SCC 192 and 2006 SCC (L & S) 1937, argued that the power of review is conferred by the statute. In case of any appointment is made under the Rules framed by the authorities of appointment, such appointment could not be cancelled either by the same au¬thority or by the higher authority in exercise of powers of administration of exigencies. In paragraph-12 of the judgment in Union of India v. Bikash Kuanar’s case (supra) the apex Court held as follows: “12 xx It is now trite that if a mistake is committed in passing an administrative order, the same may be rectified. Rectification of a mistake, however, may in a given situation require compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is only in a case where mistake is apparent on the face of the record, a rectification thereof is permissible without giving any hearing to the aggrieved party.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In the case at hand the error is apparent on the face of record inasmuch the appointing authority, in view of the letter of the Govt. should not have proceeded with the recruitment process. Accordingly the mistake can be corrected by the Authority without giving a chance of hearing to the aggrieved party. 8. In the case at hand the error is apparent on the face of record inasmuch the appointing authority, in view of the letter of the Govt. should not have proceeded with the recruitment process. Accordingly the mistake can be corrected by the Authority without giving a chance of hearing to the aggrieved party. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision in V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 SC 1080 wherein it is held that a probationer, like a tempo¬rary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those service be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. 9. The ratio laid down in V.P. Ahuja’s case (supra) is in a different contest. In that case the services of a probationer employee was terminated on the ground that the petitioner failed in his duties administratively and technically. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is stigmatic on the face of it. So the Apex Court laid down the ratio that such an order which is stigmatic on the face of it could not be passed without holding a regular enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the probationer. In the case at hand no stigmatic order has been passed. Hence there is no need to comply with the principles of natural justice by giving notice to the petitioner. At the cost of repetition, it is pointed out here that the post in which the petitioner was absorbed was not at all available for any appointment of the petitioner. Hence no illegality has been committed by the learned Chairman in passing the order impugned. 10. Learned Chairman at the end of the order has directed that whenever any selection is conducted for the post under the Department for which he has requisite qualification like the post of Junior Laboratory Assistant, the applicant should be consid¬ered along with other eligible candidates by relaxing the upper age limit and the service he has rendered in the past in the Department. The direction given by the learned Tribunal be given weightage by the O.P. No.1. Accordingly the writ application is disposed of. P.K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Application disposed of.