JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The dispute is about inter se seniority of the petitioner and the respondent Sri A. S. Yadava in the M. M. H. College, Ghaziabad. The College was initially affiliated to the Agra University. Subsequently, it was affiliated to the Meerut University which was established and incorporated along with the Kanpur University under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965. 2. The petitioner was appointed on Oct. 4, 1958 as a lecturer in Physics in the degree section of the aforesaid college. Sri Yadava, on the other hand, was appointed a lecturer in the same department and subject on July 20, 1959. On August 1, 1962 the Department of Physics for degree classes was upgraded to the level of postgraduate department. However, neither the petitioner nor Sri Yadava possessed the requisite minimum qualifications prescribed for lecturers of postgraduate classes. By means of a letter dated August 7, 1962, therefore, the Principal of the college approached the Registrar of Agra University seeking permission of the University to allow the petitioner to take M. Sc. classes in Physics. This request was considered by the Executive Council of the University at its meeting on October 20, 1962 which granted approval permitting the petitioner to teach postgraduate students in Physics under the power of relaxation vested in the University as regards the minimum qualifications prescribed for postgraduate lecturers. A similar request was made in regard to Sri Yadava by the Principal of the college by means of a letter dated July 24, 1963 which was considered by the Executive Council and the requisite exemption from minimum qualifications was granted to Sri Yadava on August 14, 1963. The petitioner asserts that whereas he started taking postgraduate classes from 1962 Sri Yadava started teaching postgraduate students from 1963 pursuant to the exemption granted by the University. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner was senior to Sri Yadava in length of service so long as both were lecturers in Physics in the degree section of the College, the petitioner having been appointed earlier than Sri Yadava. When the department of Physics was upgraded to the level of a postgraduate department on August 1, 1962 also in terms of Statute 7-B of the Agra University Statutes, the petitioner was treated as senior to Sri Yadava and was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on August 1, 1963. 4. When the department of Physics was upgraded to the level of a postgraduate department on August 1, 1962 also in terms of Statute 7-B of the Agra University Statutes, the petitioner was treated as senior to Sri Yadava and was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor on August 1, 1963. 4. No representation was made by Sri Yadava against this promotion until 1968 when a representation was made by Sri Yadava claiming that on a true and proper interpretation of the applicable statutes governing inter se seniority of lecturers in the postgraduate department in virtue of the fact that he was older in age than the petitioner he was entitled to be treated as senior to the petitioner. This representation was addressed to the Principal under the first statutes framed under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act which had come into force from Sept. 28, 1968 (vide statute No. 11.34 (6). 5. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the Principal by an order dated Dec. 31, 1968. He held that in the degree section the petitioner was admittedly senior to Sri Yadava. On August 1, 1962 the Physics Department Was upgraded to the postgraduate level as a consequence of which all the lecturers who were on the staff on July 31, 1962 were given the same promotion simultaneously. With the result their respective and relative position in the Department of Physics as it existed on July 31, 1962 remained unchanged. The substance of the finding of the Principal is that the automatic promotion of the petitioner and Sri Yadava did not disturb the inter se seniority that existed between the two prior to Aug. 1, 1962 in so far as the length of service of the two teachers in that College was concerned. The Principal rejected the explanation offered by Sri Yadava as regards the belatedness of his representation, namely, that he was ignorant of the petitioners date of birth, as untenable. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision Shri Yadava filed an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor under cl. (6) of Statute 11.34 of the first statutes framed under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision Shri Yadava filed an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor under cl. (6) of Statute 11.34 of the first statutes framed under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act. The Vice-Chancellor concurred with the opinion of the Principal and held by an order dated April 17, 1969 that the inter se seniority between the petitioner and Sri Yadava remained unchanged even after August p 1962 as they both continued to be in the same cadre and the same grade in the college notwithstanding that they became lecturers in the postgraduate department of Physics as a consequence of upgradation of the Physics Department to the level of a postgraduate department 7. Not being satisfied with the order of the Vice-Chancellor Sri Yadava approached the Chancellor by means of a representation dated August 22. 1969. The Chancellor rejected the representation by his order dated Oct. 23, 1969 holding that there was no change in the cadre of these two teachers upon their promotion as lecturers in the postgraduate department of Physics in consequence of the upgradation of the Department on August 1, 1962. The Chancellor expressed the opinion that the seniority of the petitioner in the College prior to August 1, 1962 over Sri Yadava was not affected because the cadre and grade of the two teachers remained the same. 8. Shri Yadava appears to have remained content with the aforesaid orders for several years, thereafter until May 11, 1973 when he filed a review petition under S. 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act before the Chancellor of the Meerut University praying for the review of the earlier order passed by the Chancellor as well as for setting aside of the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal referred to hereinabove. Upon this the Chancellor called for comments of the University as well as of the petitioner. The University, in its turn, sent an intimation to the petitioner through the Registrar asking for his reply which was submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objections to the aforesaid review petition on Oct. 30, 1973 to the Vice-Chancellor a true copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition. In this representation, the petitioner objected, inter alia, to the maintainability of the review petition. In addition, several other objections were taken by the petitioner on merits. 9. The Chancellor thereupon passed an order dated Oct. 30, 1973 to the Vice-Chancellor a true copy of which is annexure 9 to the writ petition. In this representation, the petitioner objected, inter alia, to the maintainability of the review petition. In addition, several other objections were taken by the petitioner on merits. 9. The Chancellor thereupon passed an order dated Oct. 10, 1975 allowing the review petition. This time the Chancellor took the view that the raising of the Physics Department to the postgraduate level and the appointment of both the teachers to the higher grade from Aug. 1, 1962 should lead to the conclusion that the cadre and grade both changed and as Sri Yadava was older in age he must be deemed to be senior to the petitioner under Statute 11.34. In this order the Chancellor has mentioned that the petitioner did not file any reply in spite of the fact that opportunity had been afforded to him to file a reply, a fact which is demonstrably wrong for the petitioner had already submitted his reply through the University on Oct. 30, 1973 which does not appear to have been brought to the Chancellors notice. This order was hence passed without considering the petitioners objection. Consequently the petitioner filed a review petition dated Nov. 7, 1975 before the Chancellor as soon as he came to know about it and brought to his notice that he had already submitted his objections through proper channel, namely, the University and that the Registrar, in his turn, had forwarded his reply to the Chancellor under a covering letter dated Jan. 21, 1974. The Registrar of the Meerut University forwarded this review petition to the Chancellor on Nov. 27, 1975 along with a letter in which he confirmed that the petitioner had submitted his reply on Oct. 30, 1973. 10. The Chancellor by an order dated March 2, 1976 rejected the petitioners representation reiterating his opinion that the length of service of the two teachers was the same reckoned from August 1, 1962 and Sri Yadava was older in age he was entitled to be considered senior to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated respectively Oct. 10, 1975 and March 2, 1976. 12. 11. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated respectively Oct. 10, 1975 and March 2, 1976. 12. Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the validity of these two orders on the following grounds: (1) The Vice-Chancellor's decision dated April 17, 1969 regarding the inter se seniority between the petitioner and Sri Yadava under cl. (61 of Statute 11.34 was final and not open to review by the Chancellor either under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act or under the U.P. State Universities Act. (2) Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act did not empower the Chancellor to review his decision upholding the decision of the Vice-Chancellor rendered on April 17, 1969 under Statute 11.34 (6). (3) The Chancellor having admittedly passed the order dated Oct. 10, 1975 without considering the petitioners objection his decision is, ex facie, unsustainable in law. (4) The decision of the Chancellor as regards the inter se seniority between the petitioner and Sri Yadava is erroneous even on merits. 13. We will take up the first point first. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to have a look at the applicable statutory provisions governing the determination of inter se seniority of teachers in an affiliated college. 14. As noticed above the college was initially affiliated to the Agra University. The inter se seniority of teachers was governed by the statutes framed under the Agra University Act, Chapter XVIII of the Statutes framed under the Agra University Act dealt with affiliation and recognition of colleges. Statute 7 (B) in this Chapter provides: "7 (B). The seniority in service of teachers in a particular college shall be determined by the length of service in that college in the same cadre and in the same grade : Provided that in the case of teachers whose length of service is the same, the seniority shall be determined by age according to the High School or equivalent certificate: Provided further that if a teacher work college in Uttar Pradesh leaves it and joins another affiliated/associated college in Uttar Pradesh, on a post in the same cadre and in the same grade, the service rendered by him in the previous college in that cadre only will also be taken into account for determining his seniority". 15. 15. Statute 8 laid down different grades for the Principles, Professors and Heads of the Departments, Assistant Professors and Lecturers of the Postgraduate and Degree sections of the College. 16. With the establishment of the Meerut University under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, the college by virtue of notification dated Nov. 21, 1966 issued under S. 4 (3) of the said Act, became affiliated to the Meerut University. By another notification issued on the same date under sub-sec. (1) of Section 50 of the said Act, the Government of Uttar Pradesh directed that the statutes and ordinances of the Agra University with regard, inter alia, to affiliation and recognition of the colleges contained in Chapt. XVIII of the Agra University Handbook, 1965-66 shall apply to the Kanpur and Meerut Universities so long as the first statutes in respect of the same subject-matter are not made under sub sec. (11 of S. 31 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act. On Sept. 28, 1968 the first statutes were made for the Meerut university. Statute 11.34 round which the arguments of the learned counsel have mainly cantered, reads as follows: 11.34. (1) Subject to the provision of this Statute the seniority of teachers in a particular college shall be determined by the length of service in that college in the same cadre and in the same grade. (2) The periods of service in another university, associated/affiliated college in the same or higher cadre and grade shall also count towards seniority if the University or college is situated in U.P. and the college is affiliated to or associated with one of the Universities in the State. (3) Service in an officiating capacity shall not be counted. Temporary service shall be counted only if it is in continuation of a subsequent permanent appointment. (4) The period of leave without pay shall not be counted in calculating the seniority unless during such leave another position involving similar work was held or it was medical leave. (5) In the case of teachers whose length of service reckoned as above, is the same, the seniority shall be determined by age according to the High School or equivalent certificate. (6) All disputes regarding seniority of teachers shall be decided by the Principal of the College. (5) In the case of teachers whose length of service reckoned as above, is the same, the seniority shall be determined by age according to the High School or equivalent certificate. (6) All disputes regarding seniority of teachers shall be decided by the Principal of the College. A person dissatisfied with the decision of the principal shall have a right to appeal against the decision to the Vice-Chancellor, whose decision in the matter shall be final." 17. It was not disputed by the parties that the Vice-Chancellors decision dated April 17, 1969 upholding the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis Sri Yadava was rendered under cl. (6) of Statute 11.34. The language of cl. (6) is explicit and leave no manner of doubt that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor as regards the inter Se seniority between the petitioner and Sri Yadava was final and unreviewable unless the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it was subject to the overriding power of the Chancellor under S. 47 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, is accepted. In this case, however, even the Chancellor in the purported exercise of powers under S. 47 upheld the decision of the Vice-Chancellor and the Principal to the effect that in so far as the length of service in the college was concerned the petitioner was senior to Sri Yadava. 18. In our opinion, however, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor render under Statute 11.34 (6) was not reviewable by the Chancellor under S. 47 which provides:-. "47. If any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as or entitled to be, a member of any Authority or Board of the University, or whether any decision of the University or any Authority thereof is in conformity with this Act. the Statute and the Ordinances, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, whose decision thereon shall be final." 19. It would be seen that the power of the Chancellor under S. 47 of the Act is confined to the decisions of the University or any authority thereof. Significantly, the decision of the Officers of the University has not been made amenable to review by the Chancellor under S. 47. The University as a corporate entity acts through its various instrumentalities or bodies as well as its officers. The authorities of the universities are set out in S. 14 of the Act. Significantly, the decision of the Officers of the University has not been made amenable to review by the Chancellor under S. 47. The University as a corporate entity acts through its various instrumentalities or bodies as well as its officers. The authorities of the universities are set out in S. 14 of the Act. They include the Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Selection Committees for appointment of teachers, etc. S. 7 of the Act, on the other hand, lists the officers of the University Which include the Chancellor the Vice-Chancellor the Treasurer, the Registrar, the Deans of the Faculties and so on. It is thus apparent that even though the Act has defined the officers and authorities of the University separately the power of review or superintendence vested in the Chancellor under S. 47 is specifically confined to the decision of the University or the authorities thereof but not the officers of the University. In contrast under S. 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, the power of review vested in the Chancellor as exercisable in respect of the decision not only of any authority of the University but also officers of the University. 20. Sri S. N. Upadhya, learned counsel for the Chancellor, submitted that this Court should give a broader meaning to the term 'university occurring in S. 47 as including also the Officers of the University who perform the duties and functions assigned to them under the Act. Elaborating the same argument Sri S. R. Singh, learned counsel for Sri Yadava, invited our attention to cl. (ix) of Section 5 of the Act which provides that the University shall have the powers and functions to prescribe conditions of affiliation of colleges and to satisfy itself by periodical inspection or otherwise that the conditions are satisfied. It was urged that Statute 11.34 falls within the ambit of the power of the University to prescribe conditions of affiliation of colleges. Consequently, it was urged, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor rendered on April 17, 1969 under Statute 11.34 (6) must be deemed to be the decision of the University itself. 21. We are unable to agree. Section 47 uses both the terms, namely, "university" or "the authorities", but deliberately omits to mention the officers of the University. Consequently, it was urged, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor rendered on April 17, 1969 under Statute 11.34 (6) must be deemed to be the decision of the University itself. 21. We are unable to agree. Section 47 uses both the terms, namely, "university" or "the authorities", but deliberately omits to mention the officers of the University. The legislative intent clearly seems to have been to exclude the decisions of the officers of the University from the ambit of the Chancellors powers under Section 47. If the contention of Sri Upadhya were right there would have been no need to mention the term "any authority thereof" in Section 47. The omission of the word "officer" under Section 47 seems, therefore, significant and cannot be ignored as a membership. The Chancellors order dated October 23, 1975 cannot hence be deemed to have been rendered under Section 47 of the Act. 22. As regards the contention of Sri S. R. Singh based on cl. (ix) of Section 5, the position is that this power is exercisable only in accordance with Section 30 which states: "30. Subject to the provisions of this Act the Statutes may provide for any matter relating to the University and shall, in particular, provide for the following:- (1) conditions under which colleges and other institutions may be affiliated to the University and the conditions under which the affiliation may be withdrawn." The Statutes are framed by the Court under Section 31 of the Act except the first statutes which are made by the State Government. 23. We are not concerned here with the legality or propriety of any `statute' but with the `decision' of the Vice-Chancellor, an officer of the University, rendered under a statute framed by the State Government. In our considered view the decision of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be equated with the decision of the 'university for purposes of applying Section 47. 24. Sri S. N. Upadhya placed reliance in this connection on an order passed by this Court in Writ petition No. 10727 of 1983 dismissing the petition in limine on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of approach to the Chancellor under Section 23 of the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam. We have examined this order but find the same of no assistance. We have examined this order but find the same of no assistance. The order was rendered in connection with an altogether different enactment the scheme of which was radically different from that of the enactments with which we are dealing. 25. Incidentally we may mention that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor rendered on April 17, 1969 as well as the Chancellor given on October 23, 1969 were both in consonance with the interpretion given by the University vide circular dated June 24, 1968, issued by the Registrar of the Meerut University to the Principals of all the affiliated colleges a true copy whereof has been annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed in this petition on behalf of the petitioner. In this circular the Registrar has stated that the Vice-Chancellor had received a number of representations forwarded by various affiliated colleges with regard to what ought to be a true and proper construction of Statute 7 (B) of the Statutes framed under the Agra University Act. It is further stated that some difficulty had arisen from the use of the words "in the same cadre and in the same grade" in the statute. The matter engaged the attention of the Vice-Chancellor who, after a careful consideration of the meaning of the term "cadre" as defined in various legal dictionaries, has come to the conclusion that considering the scheme of the statutes including Statute 8 there are only the following cadres in the college: (l) Principals; (2) Professors and Heads of the Departments; (3) Assistant Professors; and (4) Lecturers. 26. According to the view which then prevailed, therefore, the position was that the lecturers whether of the degree section or of the postgraduate section, both constituted a single cadre. This is the view which the Vice-Chancellor took in his decision dated April 17, 1969 and so also the Chancellor in his decision dated Oct. 23, 1969. The Chancellor in his decision specifically held that the cadre of the two teachers did not change merely because on the upgradation of the Physics Department from the degree level to the postgraduate level, the two teachers automatically became lecturers in Physics in the postgraduate classes. 27. 23, 1969. The Chancellor in his decision specifically held that the cadre of the two teachers did not change merely because on the upgradation of the Physics Department from the degree level to the postgraduate level, the two teachers automatically became lecturers in Physics in the postgraduate classes. 27. Our conclusion, therefore, on the first point is that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor dated April 17, 1960 determining the inter se seniority on the representation of Sri Yadava had become final and was not reviewable under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act or the Statutes framed thereunder. 28. The question which next arises for consideration is whether the decision of the Vice-Chancellor which had become final under the Kanpur and Meerut universities Act could be validly reviewed by the Chancellor under S. 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The answer to this question will also dispose of the second point urged in support of this petition Section 68 reads as follows:- "68. Reference to the Chancellor- If any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be, member of any authority or other body of the Universities or whether any decision of any authority or officer of the University including any question as to the validity of a Statute, Ordinance or Regulation, not being a Statute or Ordinance made or approved by the State Government or by the Chancellor is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or the Ordinance made thereunder the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final: Provided that no reference under this section shall be made- (a) more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time; (b) by any person other than an authority or officer of the University or a person aggrieved. Provided further that the Chancellor may in exceptional circumstances- (a) act suo motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso; (b) where the matter referred relates to a dispute about the election, and the eligibility of the person so elected is in doubt, pass such orders of stay as he thinks just and expedient." This provision as it stands does not include any power in the Chancellor to review his own decision rendered even under the U.P. State Universities Act. However, there was a cl. (cl) to the second proviso which read as follows; (c) Review any decision made by him earlier under this section." This clause too was omitted by the U. P. Education Laws Amendment Act, 1977 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1977) which came into force from April 21. 1977. 29. Learned counsel for the respondents relying on cl. (c) of the second proviso to Section 68, submitted that at the time when the Chancellor reviewed his earlier order, he was empowered to do so in virtue of cl. (c), read with Section 74 (2) (a) of the U.P. State Universities Act. It was urged by the learned counsel that the order dated Oct. 10, 1975 passed by the Chancellor under S. 47 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act would be deemed in virtue of cl. (a) of S. 74 (2) to have been passed under the corresponding provision of the present Act. i.e. under S. 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The Chancellor was hence competent under cl. (c) of the second proviso to S. 68 to review his order dated Oct. 23. 1969. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, vehemently contended that neither S. 74 (2) nor S. 68 was available to the Chancellor for reviewing his order which had been validly passed and had become final under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act. 31. It is indisputable that the power which the Chancellor exercises under S. 68 is of a quasi-judicial nature. Under this Chancellor gives decisions which affect rights and obligations of the parties. The power which vests in the Chancellor under S. 68 has the incidence and character of a quasi-judicial power. 31. It is indisputable that the power which the Chancellor exercises under S. 68 is of a quasi-judicial nature. Under this Chancellor gives decisions which affect rights and obligations of the parties. The power which vests in the Chancellor under S. 68 has the incidence and character of a quasi-judicial power. It is equally indisputable that in the absence of a specific provision empowering a tribunal or authority exercising powers of quasijudicial nature, the tribunal or the authority cannot review its decision validly rendered. Even a court of general jurisdiction does not have the power to review its decision on merits in the absence of a specific provision. Indeed the law is far to well settled to require any further elaboration. 32. So far as Section 68 is concerned, even when clause (c) to the second proviso was there the power of review was expressly confined to the decisions rendered by the Chancellor under Section 68. The decision which the Chancellor has reviewed was given not under Section 68 but under the purported exercise of power under Section 47 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act. Section 68 by itself, therefore, lends no support to the respondents. 33. We will, therefore. examine whether Section 74 (2) (a) lends support to the respondent. The provision reads as follows:- "74 Repeal of certain enactments. (1) ................. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal- (a) all appointments made, orders issued, degrees or diplomas conferred or certificates issued, privilege's granted or other things done (including registration of graduates) under any such enactment, shall be deemed to have been respectively made, issued, conferred, granted or done under the corresponding provisions of this Act, and except as otherwise provided by or under this Act continue in force unless and until they are superseded by any order made under this Act; (b) ........................." 34. In our opinion, the term "orders issued" in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 74 refers only to orders which are of a legislative character and not of a judicial nature such as the order passed by the Chancellor under Section 47 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act undoubtedly was Section 68 empowers the Chancellor to consider the legality of a decision of any authority or officer of the University and not of an order made or issued in the exercise of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on various authorities constituted under the various Acts repealed by the U.P. State Universities Act. These authorities were invested with the power of subordinate legislation statutes and ordinances, for example. It is the operation of these pieces of subordinate legislation which was, in our humble view, intended to be saved by Section 74 (2) (b). 35. We are considerably fortified in the view which we have expressed above by a decision of the Patna High Court reported in AIR 1963 Pat 437 , Bhola Prasad Singh v. U. A. Goswami. A somewhat identical question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of that Court consisting of V. Ramaswami. Chief Justice and N. L. Untwalia, J. (as their Lordships then were). The question was whether the Chancellor had power to review or rescind an order of a quasijudicial nature passed by him under Section 8 (4) of the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 with the help of Section 24 of the Bihar General Clauses Act. The position in that case was that the Chancellor had in the exercise of powers under Section 8 (4) rejected the representation filed by respondent No. 1 in that petition, challenging the appointment of the petitioner Who was Principal of an affiliated college, by an order dated June 11, 1962. Later on, the Chancellor reviewed his previous order, cancelled it and passed another order dated September 17, 1962 annulling the resolution of the syndicate dated June 24, 1960 approving the appointment of the petitioner as the Principal of the College. It was not disputed that the Chancellor had no specific power of review under the Act. Later on, the Chancellor reviewed his previous order, cancelled it and passed another order dated September 17, 1962 annulling the resolution of the syndicate dated June 24, 1960 approving the appointment of the petitioner as the Principal of the College. It was not disputed that the Chancellor had no specific power of review under the Act. For the respondent No. 1, however, reliance was placed on Section 24 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act which provides: "Where, by any Bihar and Orissa Act or Bihar Act, a power to make or issue notifications, orders, schemes, rules, bye-laws or forms, is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add, to amend, vary or rescind any notification orders, schemes, rules, bye-laws or forms so made or issued. 36. Their Lordships rejected the argument and held that the term "orders" spoken of in Section 24 of the Act are orders made or issued in exercise of the power of a kind of subordinate legislation conferred by any Act, to wit, the various control orders made under the Defence of India Act within the meaning of Section 21 of the Central Act. Their Lordships observed that the power under Section 8 (4) of the Act is exercisable by order in writing, but is not a power to makean order within the meaning of Section 24 of Bihar General Clauses Act. Section 74 (2) (b) of the U.P. State Universities Act also used the expression `orders issued' and contextually it should he assigned the same meaning as Section 24 of the Bihar Act. 37. Section 74 (2) (b) uses the term, `orders issued' and not a `decision made'. Further, the words used are "and except as otherwise provided by or under this Act continue in force.............." One does not speak of a `decision issued' or a decision continuing in force. The terminology used in Section 74 (2) (b) also reinforces the view that we are inclined to take, namely, that the term `orders issued' means general orders having legislative character as opposed to an order made in an individual case. 38. Further, even on general principles, a decision rendered in the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial power cannot be set at naught by a mere executive or legislative fiat. 38. Further, even on general principles, a decision rendered in the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial power cannot be set at naught by a mere executive or legislative fiat. Consequently the provision for review has to be express and explicit and cannot be left to be inferred from another provision enacted avowedly for another purpose, namely, repeal and savings. 39. Lastly, the Chancellors order dated October 23, 1969 as demonstrated under point No. 1. not being an order passed under Section 47 of the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act could not be deemed as one passed under Sec. 68 of the present Act even with the aid of Section 74 (2) (b) and consequently Clause (c) to Section 68 could not apply in any case. 40. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the Chancellor had no jurisdiction to review his earlier decision rendered in 1969. The impugned order is thus entirely without jurisdiction and null and void. 41. In the third point urged in support of this petition we do not find any merit. It is true that the Chancellor passed the impugned order dated October 10, 1975 without considering the petitioners objection. It is further true that the petitioner had, before the Chancellor passed the impugned order, duly submitted his objections through the proper channel namely, the Registrar of the University and that the Registrar had in his turn forwarded the same to the Chancellor. However, upon a representation made by the petitioner in that behalf, the Chancellor subsequently considered the petitioners objections on merits by means of his order dated March 2, 1976 reiterating his opinion as expressed in his earlier order dated October 10, 1975. The two orders have to be read together and if they are so read it is obvious that the vice from which the first order suffered on account of non-consideration of the petitioners objection was cured subsequently. 42. In the view which we have taken on the first two points, it is not necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the fourth contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the petition is entitled to succeed in the ground that the inter se seniority between the parties having been validly determined, the same could not be disturbed by the Chancellor as he had no power to review as demonstrated above. 43. 43. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Chancellor had no power of review, this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Chancellor in the exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was urged that the result of quashing the impugned order would be to restore the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor in 1969 which are contrary to law. 44. We are unable to agree. In our opinion, once the matter of inter se seniority was determined validly and finally between the parties it ought not to be permitted to be reagitated on a mere change of opinion in the absence of any power of review. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor rendered in 1969 adjudicating the rights of the petitioner and the contesting respondents became final under the express terms of Statute No. 11.34 (6). Even on principles analogous to res judicata the decision was binding on the parties. The finality attaching to inter parte decisions is not a matter merely of procedure but one belonging to the realm of substantive law. The principle is based on a sound public policy to the effect that parties to a is are entitled to sit back and assume that decision once rendered between them by a Court or authority of competent jurisdiction shall not be reopened save as expressly provided otherwise. It is on this principle that Courts have reiterated time and again that in the absence of a specific statutory provision a Court or authority is not entitled to review its decisions or orders properly made. 45. Let us recapitulate the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid principles. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Professor in 1963. Sri Yadava did not raise any dispute about seniority. He waited for full five years before raising the question of seniority in 1968. The Principal of the College, the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor all upheld the seniority of the petitioner consistently with the opinion then prevailing in the University, namely, that the lecturers of the degree section as well as the post-degree section both constituted a single cadre. He waited for full five years before raising the question of seniority in 1968. The Principal of the College, the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor all upheld the seniority of the petitioner consistently with the opinion then prevailing in the University, namely, that the lecturers of the degree section as well as the post-degree section both constituted a single cadre. Shri Yadav again remained content with these decisions for another four years and if was only in 1973 that Shri Yadav filed the present review petition before the Chancellor and the sole ground disclosed by him in that review petition before the Chancellor was that this Court had in the aforesaid Special appeal taken a contrary view. 46. In the background of these facts learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that this Court ought not to refuse the relief to the petitioner even after holding that the Chancellor had no power of review. Valuable rights had accrued in favour of the petitioner under the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor in 1969. These orders ought not, in our opinion, to be allowed to be disturbed except in accordance with law. 47. Further the view which the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor expressed in 1969 was, as mentioned above, consistent with the meaning which was assigned to the term "cadre" by the University at that time and having regard to the connotation which the term "cadre" has come to assume in Service Jurisprudence it cannot be said that the view expressed by the authorities in 1969 was, ex facie, unsustainable in law. The expression "cadre" in our opinion, means the strength of a service or the part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. And as things stood in 1962 and 1963 when the petitioner and Sri Yadava were promoted as a consequence solely or the upgradation of the decree department to the level of the post-graduate department, it does not appeal that the posts of lecturers in the post-graduate degree section were sanctioned as a separate unit. The only provision on which the respondents counsel relied was Statute 8 of the Statutes framed tinder the Agra University Act which merely laid down higher grades of salary of the lecturers of the post-graduate degree department. The only provision on which the respondents counsel relied was Statute 8 of the Statutes framed tinder the Agra University Act which merely laid down higher grades of salary of the lecturers of the post-graduate degree department. The contrary view expressed by the Chancellor appears to have been provoked by the decision of the High Court in the above mentioned special appeal, though the impugned orders do not specifically say so. But even that decision is the subject of appeal before the Supreme Court which has stayed its operation in any case learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the special appeal Bench merely assumed that the posts of lecturers in postgraduate decree section constituted a separate cadre from the mere fact that the grades admissible to the lecturers of the post-graduate degree classes were higher. The question whether in law the lecturers of the post-graduate degree classes constituted a separate cadre was neither specifically raised nor decided. 48. Be that as it may, the position is that it cannot be said that the orders passed by the authorities in 1969 in favour of the petitioner are, ex facie, invalid or unsustainable in law so as to pursuade this Court to refuse the relief to the petitioner even after holding that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. 49. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated October 10, 1975 passed by the Chancellor (Annexure XI) as well as that dated March 2, 1976 (Annexure XIV) are both quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs from the respondents.