JUDGMENT : N.P. Singh, J. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the ORDER :dated 10.5.1984 issued by the Department of Agriculture, cancelling the earlier ORDER :dated 27.1.1984 by which the petitioner had been posted as the Dean at Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar at Pusa (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rajendra University'). 2. The petitioner entered into the service of the State Government in the year 1947 and after establishment of the Rajendra Agricultural University, his services were transferred to the said University. In due course the petitioner resigned from the Government service and opted for the Rajendra University in the year 1979. The petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor at the Rajendra University, with effect from 1.4.1975 and his appointment was confirmed. 3. The Birsa Agricultural University Ordinance, 1980, which was later replaced by an Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') was promulgated for establishment of a separate University for teaching and research in Agriculture including Animal Husbandry in the South North Chotanagpur Divisions of the State of Bihar. In view of section 39(1) of the said Ordinance, the Ranchi Agricultural College, Ranchi College of Forestry and Ranchi Veterinary College ceased be to the Constituent College of the Rajendra Agricultural University and after the notification issued in the official gazette, became part of the Birsa Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the Birsa University') Sub-section (5) of section 39 of said Ordinance which is relevant is as follows : "(2) All employees of the College, Research Institute and other offices and Institutions of Rajendra Agricultural University located within the jurisdiction of the University other than th05e specified in sub-section 4(a) shall be deemed to be transferred to the University and they shall ceases to be the employees of the Rajendra Agricultural University: Provided that they shall give Written notice to the Rajendra Agricultural University within six months of the publication of the University statutes in the Bihar Gazette that they may be permitted to he retained In the service of and to be posted on equivalent post within the jurisdiction of the Rajendra Agricultural University as per decision of the State Government and the State Government will intimate its decision to the University within a year. The Government of Bihar, within one year from the date of promulgation of this Ordinance, but after the aforesaid six months will take decision over all these matters and direct the University accordingly." In view of the aforesaid sub-section, services of all employees of the College, Institute and other offices of the Rajendra Agricultural University located within the jurisdiction of the newly created Birsa University stood transferred to the Birsa University unless a decision has been taken by the State Government in respect of some of the employees under proviso to said sub-section. On the relevant date when Ranchi Veterinary College became a Constituent College of Birsa University, in view of sub-section (1) of section 39 of the said Ordinance, the petitioner was functioning as University Professor in Rajendra University and was posted at the Ranchi Veterinary College, Ranchi. The petitioner exercised his option to be posted on an equivalent post within the jurisdiction of Rajendra Agricultural University in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 39 of the aforesaid Ordinance by giving a written notice dated 15.6.1981 to the Rajendra Agricultural University and the State Government. 4. In view of the aforesaid written notice, a decision was taken by the State Government to transfer the petitioner from the post of University Professor of Ranchi Veterinary College to the vacant post of Dean at Rajendra Agricultural College, Pusa. The decision of the State Government was communicated by aforesaid letter dated 27.1.1984 to the Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra University. In that communication, it was mentioned that the petitioner shall not be entitled to special pay of the post of Dean of that University. According to the petitioner, the post of University Dean in Veterinary Science, is in the same scale of pay as that of University Professor which the petitioner was holding while posted at Ranchi. it has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that he submitted his joining report for the post of Dean of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry in the Rajendra Agricultural University in the afternoon of the 28th January, 1984, but the then Vice-Chancellor refused to accept his joining report by letter dated the 1st February, 1984, addressed to the petitioner. Later the impugned communication dated 10.5.1984 was issued cancelling the earlier decision which had been communicated by letter dated 27.1.1984. 5. Later the impugned communication dated 10.5.1984 was issued cancelling the earlier decision which had been communicated by letter dated 27.1.1984. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 39 of the ordinance enables an employee of the Rajendra University to exercise his option to be retained in the service of the Rajendra University after creation of the Birsa University and to be posted against an equivalent post, within the jurisdiction of Rajendra University which option was exercised by the petitioner. It was pointed out that the State Government has been vested with the power to take a final decision in this regard and a decision having been taken by the State Government on consideration of the relevant materials, which was communicated to all the persons concerned by letter dated 27.1.1984, there was no occasion or justification for cancelling that ORDER :. 6. In view of clear and unambiguous language of the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 39 of the ordinance, there cannot any dispute that the employees of the Agricultural University who had been posted in the Colleges or Institutions which fell into the jurisdiction of Birsa University after creation thereof, were given option to opt for the Rajendra University, subject to a decision in that regard being" taken by the State Government. In the communication dated 27.1.1984 it appears that after fun consideration by the State Government ( jkT; ljdkj us xEHkhjrk iwoZd fopkjksijkar fu.kZ; fy;k gS ) it ,vas decided that the petitioner be transferred from the post of University Professor at Rajendra Veterinary College, Kanke to the post of Dean, Veterinary College at Pusa under Rajendra University. No reason has been given in ORDER :dated 10.5.1984 as to why the earlier decision of the State Government was being cancelled. It need not be pointed out that the decision of the State Government as communicated by letter dated 27.1.1984 was not just an administrative decision transferring an officer of the University from one post to another; it was a decision taken in exercise of a statutory power vested in the State Government by proviso to sub-section (5) of section 39 of the Ordinance. That statutory provision enables an employee of the Rajendra Agricultural University to opt for being retained in the Rajendra University and being posted to an equivalent post in the Rajendra University itself instead of being transferred permanently to the Birsa University. In this background, in my opinion, the State Government could not have cancelled the earlier decision in such a casual manner without even assigning any reason for the same. 7. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the impugned ORDER :dated 10.5.1984 amounts to exercise of power of review of the earlier ORDER :, when no such power has been vested in the State Government. It is well known that whenever the Counts have said that rower or review is a creature of statute, it has been said only in context of exercise of judicial or quasi judicial power. That principle may not be extended to exercise of administrative power under a statute. But even if it is assumed that for some compelling reason the State Government could have recalled its earlier decision, that reason should have been disclosed to the petitioner and should have been mentioned in the ORDER :. It has been rightly urged that the ORDER :under challenge is also against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the decision in favour of the petitioner having been taken by the State Government on basis of the statutory option exercised by the petitioner, could not have nullified without telling me petitioner the reasons for the same. It need not be impressed that as the earlier ORDER :has been issued under exercise of the power under proviso to section 39 (5) of the Ordinance, its recall by the ORDER :impugned cannot be equated with an exercise of an administrative power of transfer of an officer from one place to the another by the State Government which is permissible under administrative exigencies. 8. On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that the post of the Dean is not an equivalent post to the University Professor and as such the State Government had to cancel its earlier ORDER :. On behalf of the petitioner it has been asserted that the posts of the University Professor and the Dean of University are equivalent posts and there was no illegality or infirmity in the ORDER :posting the petitioner to the post of Dean of the Rajendra University. On behalf of the petitioner it has been asserted that the posts of the University Professor and the Dean of University are equivalent posts and there was no illegality or infirmity in the ORDER :posting the petitioner to the post of Dean of the Rajendra University. I am not inclined to enter into this controversy because if that as the reason the State Government could have only modified the ORDER :as contained in communication dated 27.1.1984 by posting the petitioner to an equivalent post in terms of the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 39 of the Ordinance. But on that ground the whole decision of the State Government to allow the petitioner to exercise his option to be posted against an equivalent post within the Rajendra Agricultural University could not have been nullified. 9. Under the circumstances mentioned above, I am left with no option but to allow this writ application and to quash the impugned ORDER :dated 10.5.1984. I further direct that the petitioner should be allowed in join either the post of Dean to which he had been posted by the earlier decision of the State Government or to any other equivalent post, to the post of the University Professor, within three months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed.