JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - At the stage of admission, the sole respondent put in appearance through Sri M. S. Negi and prayed for two weeks time to file a counter- affidavit which was granted. Since then the parties having exchanged affidavits and further having agreed that the petition be disposed finally at the stage of admission, the same is being disposed of finally by means of this judgment. 2. The petitioner, a teacher of the Garhwal University the University in short) challenges the validity of an order dated 29-7-1983 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of, the said University, transferring the petitioner from Birla College, Srinagar, Garhwal, a constituent College of the University to Swami Ram Tirath Degree College, Tehri another constituent College of the same University. By the said order a number of teachers were transferred by the University from one constituent College to another constituent College. 3. Garhwal University is a State University governed by the U.P. State Universities Act. It maintains three constituent Colleges, out of which Birla College and Swami Ram Tirth Degree College are two. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher of the said University by means of a letter of appointment dated 4th Sept. 1978 and was posted to the Birla College, Srinagar, Garhwal in the faculty of Commerce. In the letter of appointment, it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner could be transferred to any of the three constituent Colleges of the University. In pursuance of the said letter, the petitioner joined the University as a teacher. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby he has been transferred from Birla College, Srinagar, to Swami Ram Tirth Degree College. 4. For the petitioner, the sole contention raised was that inasmuch as there is no provision in the U.P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or Statutes or Ordinances framed thereunder providing for transfer of a teacher of the University from one constituent College to another, the petitioner could not be transferred. Elaborating the contention learned counsel urged relying on S. 32 of the Act that the term in the petitioner's contract providing for his transfer from one constituent College to another was void and ineffectual in law as the same was not sanctioned by the Act or the Statutes or the Ordinances and therefore, must be deemed to be inconsistent therewith. 5. We are unable to agree. 5. We are unable to agree. In order to appreciate the submission we may briefly notice the relevant statutory provisions. S. 32(1) of the Act provides : "Except as otherwise provided by Statutes no salaried officer and teacher of the University shall be appointed except under a written contract which shall be consistent with the provisions of this Act, Statutes and Ordinances." 6. It will thus be seen that a teacher of the University is required to be appointed under a written contract which has to be consistent with the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and Ordinances. The mere absence of a provision specifically providing for transfer cannot, in our opinion, bring about an inconsistency between the term of the contract providing for transfer and the Act or Statutes or Ordinances. Inconsistency means that the two provisions the one in the Act or Statutes or Ordinances and the other in the contract must be wholly irreconcilable with or repugnant to each other. The question to be asked in our opinion, in each case would be whether there is any provision in the Act or Statutes or Ordinances which expressly or by necessary intendment prohibits the posting of a teacher of the University from one constituent College to another. If the answer is in the negative, it must follow that there is no inconsistency in the term of the petitioner's contract of service. An analysis of some of the relevant provisions would demonstrate that there is no inconsistency in the term of the petitioner's contract with the Act or Statutes or Ordinances. A constituent College is defined in the Act as an Institution maintained by the University or the State Government and named as such by the Statutes. The Colleges in question are both maintained by the University and they have been named as such under Statute 12.01 of the first Statutes of the University of Garhwal. S. 2 (19) defines a teacher of the University as a teacher employed by the University for imparting instructions in the University or in an Institute or a constituent College maintained by the University. S. 2(5) of the Act defines `autonomous College' as an affiliated or associated College declared as such in accordance with the provisions of S. 42 of the Act. 7. Unlike an affiliated or associated College, a constituent college is not an autonomous College having a separate or independent management. S. 2(5) of the Act defines `autonomous College' as an affiliated or associated College declared as such in accordance with the provisions of S. 42 of the Act. 7. Unlike an affiliated or associated College, a constituent college is not an autonomous College having a separate or independent management. It is, as mentioned above, a College wholly maintained by the University and under S. 13(a) the Vice-Chancellor as the principal executive of the University exercises supervision and control over the affairs of the constituent Colleges. The teachers posted to impart instructions in constituent Colleges are teachers of the University under the Act. Their employer is the University. The contract of service which the teachers of the University are required to fill as mentioned in Statute No. 16.01 is one which is executed between the teacher and the University, whereas in the case of teachers of affiliated Colleges, the contract of service is between the teacher and the management of the affiliated College. The shifting of a teacher from one constituent College maintained by the University to another does not thus involve any change of employers or alteration in the terms and conditions of service of the teacher. The teacher of the University under the Statutes (vide 18.05 (b) and (c)) carries his seniority with him to whichever constituent College he is asked to teach in. 8. As a result of transfer from one constituent College to another, therefore, there is no breach of any provision of the Act or Statutes, express or otherwise. Learned counsel was entirely unable to point out any provision in the Act or Statutes or Ordinances which could be said to have been violated in the transfer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the advertisement inviting applications for the post of teachers was also not in relation to any particular constituent College of the University and that it was simply one inviting applications for appointment of teachers in the University generally. 9. In this view of the matter we are clearly of the opinion that the term in the petitioner's contract of service specifically providing for transfer of the petitioner from one constituent College to another cannot be disregarded as ineffectual in law. 10. in this connection we may also refer to 16.01 of the first Statutes of the University which provides : "16.01. 10. in this connection we may also refer to 16.01 of the first Statutes of the University which provides : "16.01. Except in the case of an appointment referred to in Statute 10.03 (1) or appointment under S. 31(3) in a vacancy caused by the grant of leave to a teacher for a period not exceeding 10 months or of an appointment under S. 13(6), teachers of the University shall be appointed on a written contract in the Form set out in Appendix B., Appendix `B' (in so far as is relevant) referred to in Statute 16.01 reads thus : "Appendix `B'. (See Statute 16.01). Form of Agreement with members of Teaching Staff of the University. Agreement made this ...... day of ..... 19, between Sri/Smt. Kumari...... in the first part and the University of ........ (hereinafter called the University) of the other part : It is hereby agreed as follows:- 1. That the University hereby appoints Sri/Srimati/Kumari....... the party of the first part, to be a teacher of the University with effect from the date of the party of the first part hereinafter called the teacher takes charge of the duties of his/her office, and the teacher, hereby accepts the engagement, and undertakes to take such part, and perform such duties in the University as may be required of him/her including the Management and protection of the University property or funds, the organisation of instruction, the teaching formal or informal and the examination of students, the maintenance of discipline and the promotion of students welfare in connection with any curricular or residential activities and perform such extra curricular duties of the University as may be entrusted to him/her and to submit himself/herself to the Officers under whom he/she is for the time being placed by the authorities of the University and/shall abide by and conform to the Code of Conduct for teachers laid down by the University as amended from time to time." 11. The terms of appendix `B' particularly the words "undertakes to take such part and perform such duties in the University as may be required of him/her .......... The terms of appendix `B' particularly the words "undertakes to take such part and perform such duties in the University as may be required of him/her .......... and to submit himself/herself to the Officers under whom he/she is for the time being placed by the authorities of the University........." further support the view that the term in the letter of appointment of the petitioner that he was liable to be transferred to any of the three constituent Colleges maintained by the University did not militate' against either the "Act or the Statutes, or Ordinances. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner i the end faintly urged that after joining the University the petitioner wrote to the Registrar of the University stating that the term in the letter of his appointment providing for his transfer was not in conformity with the Act or statutes and that the said term, therefore, be deleted, and in reply to this letter the Registrar of the University wrote a letter dated 18/20th Sept 1978 saying that the petitioner's request had been accepted and that he would not be transferred to any other constituent Colleges. 13. The Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University has filed a counter- affidavit emphatically denying these allegations. It has been asserted in the Vice-Chancellor's counter-affidavit that no such letter was in fact issued by or on behalf of the University and that the records maintained by University clearly demonstrate that no such letter was issued by the Registrar and that the Vice-Chancellor never issued any direction to the Registrar accepting any modification in the petitioner's contract of service. 14. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the assertions made by the Vice-Chancellor. It has not been established that the terms in the petitioner's appointment were subsequently varied. 15. No other point has been urged in support of this petition. 16. To sum up the term in the petitioner's letter of appointment stating that he could be transferred was valid and binding not being repugnant to the Act or the Statutes or the Ordinances. The impugned order is hence not liable to be quashed. 17. In the premise, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.