JUDGMENT : P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. 1. This writ appeal arises from the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge on 26.10.2017 dismissing W.P. (C) No. 26844 of 2015 filed by the appellant challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, the second respondent in the writ petition, cancelling his appointment as Peon in the Perinthalmanna Branch of the State Bank of Travancore. 2. The appellant applied for appointment pursuant to Ext.R1 (a) notification issued by the State Bank of Travancore. In that notification it was specifically stipulated that Candidates can apply for vacancies in their native districts/centres only. It was also stipulated that Selection will be made district wise on the basis of merit among the candidates of the same district. The petitioner is admittedly a native of Palakkad District. He however applied for appointment in Malappuram District. Without noticing that fact he was appointed and posted in the Perinthalmanna Branch. When the mistake came to the notice of the employer bank, the Deputy General Manager verified the records and cancelled the petitioner's appointment by the impugned order. The main contention raised by the appellant was that he had not suppressed any fact and it was knowing full well that he is from Palakkad District that he was appointed in Malappuram District. Before us also the same contention is raised. In addition, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that before Ext.P6 order was issued, the appellant was not put on notice or heard. 3. We are afraid both the grounds raised by the appellant are without any merit. It was categorically mentioned in Ext.R1 (a) notification inviting applications that Candidates can apply for vacancies of their native districts/centres only. Selection will be made district wise on the basis of merit among the candidates of the same district. In case it is detected at any stage of recruitment that a candidate does not fulfil the eligibility norms and/or that he/she has furnished any incorrect/false information or has suppressed any material facts, his/her candidature will stand cancelled. If any of these shortcomings is/are detected even after appointment, his/her services are liable to be terminated. 4. On the terms of Ext.R1 (a) notification, the appellant, who is a native of Palakkad District, was ineligible to apply for appointment in Malappuram District. If any of these shortcomings is/are detected even after appointment, his/her services are liable to be terminated. 4. On the terms of Ext.R1 (a) notification, the appellant, who is a native of Palakkad District, was ineligible to apply for appointment in Malappuram District. He ought to have in our opinion gone through the notification fully and carefully, understood its terms and applied for appointment in Palakkad District. The number of vacancies available in Palakkad District was the same as the vacancies in Malappuram District, namely 39. No prejudice would therefore have been caused to the appellant had he applied for appointment in Palakkad District. He does not also gain any advantage by applying in Malappuram District. The appellant does not dispute the fact that he is a native of Palakkad District. Such being the situation, even if he had been put on notice and heard, on the terms of Ext.R1 (a) notification, no conclusion other than the one arrived at in Ext.P6 could have been arrived at. The employer had in the notification reserved power with it to cancel the appointment if, after the appointment, it is found that the candidate who was appointed does not fulfill the eligibility norms. In such circumstances, merely for the reason that overlooking the fact that the appellant is not eligible, he was appointed in Malappuram District, is not a reason to hold that his appointment is not liable to be cancelled. 5. A learned single Judge of this court has in Sasidharan vs. Reserve Bank of India, 1990 (2) KLT 573 held that power is inherent in every administrative authority to correct the accidental mistakes committed by it. It was held that if the power to correct inadvertent mistakes is not recognized and accepted, it may lead to perpetuation of injustice and to undesirable consequences. It was also held that an order correcting a mistake does not affect the rights of the party benefited by the mistake as no rights legally inhered in him by virtue of the mistaken orders. Paragraph 7 of the decision in Sasidharan vs. Reserve Bank of India (supra) is extracted below: “7. The power is inherent in any administrative authority to correct accidental mistakes committed by it, in ignorance of, or overlooking the facts. Paragraph 7 of the decision in Sasidharan vs. Reserve Bank of India (supra) is extracted below: “7. The power is inherent in any administrative authority to correct accidental mistakes committed by it, in ignorance of, or overlooking the facts. Indeed such power should be exercised, where rights of third parties have been affected by the mistaken proceedings, without their knowledge, and without their being heard, resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the power to correct inadvertent mistakes is not recognised and accepted, it may lead to perpetuation of injustice and to undesirable consequences. A person whose rights are so affected by an illegal order passed behind his back need not be compelled to rush to court to get it set aside, on pain of its being held binding otherwise. The authority concerned can itself remedy the mischief, on its being apprised of its mistake and the injustice flowing therefrom. (See in this connection Karunakaran Nambiar vs. Director of Public Instruction, 1966 KLT 290 ). Such an order does not affect any rights of the party benefiting by the mistake, as no rights legally inhered in him by virtue of the mistaken order. Wade in his Administrative Law (Fifth Edition, page 226) points out that even where such powers are not (expressly) conferred, statutory tribunals would have power, to correct accidental mistakes, and to review a decision when facts subsequently discovered have revealed a miscarriage of justice. The same rules must apply to non-statutory action by administrative authorities as well.” 6. The very same view was reiterated by the learned single Judge in V.V. Prakasini vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, 1993 (1) KLJ 632 wherein it was held as follows: “18. Such a reserve power to correct mistakes committed by itself has to be located in every public authority in the interests of justice and to avoid arbitrariness. It is not uncommon -in fact it is a human failing that errors are committed in the conduct of human affairs. Infallibility is not a human virtue, that being a quality attributable only to the Almighty. It is not uncommon -in fact it is a human failing that errors are committed in the conduct of human affairs. Infallibility is not a human virtue, that being a quality attributable only to the Almighty. Such a power to correct apparent mistakes is therefore an absolute necessity and has to be found in every authority, even without a specific provision as was held by me earlier in my decision in Sasidharan vs. Reserve Bank of India, 1990 (2) KLT 573 , paragraph 7 relying on the decision in Karunakaran Nambiar vs. Director of Public Instruction, 1966 KLT 290 and others.” 7. In the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions with which we concur, the appellant cannot successfully challenge Ext.P6. 8. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed.