Order This writ petition has been filed for an appropriate writ/order quashing memo no. G/S 3980-87/98 dated 23.3.1998 (respondent no. 1) whereby the petitioner was transferred by the Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University from B.S.S. College, Supaul to Gorelal Mehta College, Banmankhi, Pumea. 2. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as lecturer in B.S.S. College and also looked after functions of Lieutenant & Company Commander, N.C.C. Although in the impugned order, no reason for transfer has been disclosed but according to the respondents, and their statements made in the counter affidavit and certain papers attached therewith, it would appear that instant transfer had taken place on administrative ground. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in absence of any joint cadre of the teachers of the colleges, transfer of the petitioner to other college would frustrate his claim for seniority and promotion etc. and that since the petitioner is holding the post of Company Commander of NCC in the rank of lieutenant, therefore he cannot be transferred to a college where no such post was available. It is alleged in spite of the aforesaid requirements, the respondent Vice Chancellor has at the instance of professor Incharge (respondent no. 4) got the petitioner transferred. 4. The case of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University (respondent nos. 2 and 3) is, since both the colleges are constituent units of the University, the Vice Chancellor has full jurisdiction to transfer a teacher from one college to other, basically on three grounds, namely, i) in academic interest of the college, b) having regard to compassionate view, and c) administrative ground, if any, in the interest of the college. Therefore, it would be wrong to allege that the Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to take such a decision. It has been further stated that the statement of the writ petitioner that there is no post of Company Commander of NCC in the other college is also far from truth because the Principal, Gorelal Mehta College has already informed vide letter dated 4.3.1998 (Annexure-D) that such a post was already lying vacant there. A reference was also made by the learned counsel for the respondent University that having regard to certain complaints against the petitioner a committee comprising of high officials of the University was constituted to enquire and submit a report. A reference was also made by the learned counsel for the respondent University that having regard to certain complaints against the petitioner a committee comprising of high officials of the University was constituted to enquire and submit a report. The said committee having enquired into the matter in presence of the petitioner, by a report dated 19.12.1997 (Annexure C) suggested that with a view to maintain peace and academic atmosphere in the campus the petitioner including Shri Manoj Kumar Singh be transferred to a different college. Therefore, facts noticed above including the report of the committee would certainly indicate that such a transfer was purely on administrative ground. 5. From the materials discussed above, there appears no dispute that transfer of the petitioner has taken place purely on administrative ground in the interest of the college. This is also not in dispute that both the colleges are constituent units of the respondent University. As per the provisions of sub-section (14) of Section 10 of the Bihar University Act, 1976, transfer of a college teacher can take place at any time under the orders of the Vice Chancellor on the basis of the guidelines approved by the Chancellor. This is not in dispute that in view of the said requirement, the Chancellor had vide notification no. 269/GS (C) dated 22.7.1992 framed guidelines for transfer of such teacher on three grounds-a) in academic interest of the college. b) having regard to compassionate view, and. c) administrative ground, if any. The present case, as would appear from the statement made in the counter affidavit and relevant materials attached therewith would come in the third category i.e. transfer on administrative ground which may include disciplinary and other case in which the University may consider shifting of certain teachers necessary for better academic discipline and atmosphere. While ordering such transfers, the University need not specify reason and the decision of the Chancellor shall be final as no appeal would lie against such transfer. 6. Thus in view of the aforesaid provision, there cannot be any dispute that the Vice Chancellor had ample jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner from this College on administrative ground. 7. The other question regarding transfer of the petitioner to a different cadre has to be also rejected as being without substance. Because as noticed above, both the Colleges are constituent units of the University. 7. The other question regarding transfer of the petitioner to a different cadre has to be also rejected as being without substance. Because as noticed above, both the Colleges are constituent units of the University. Hence in view of the said provision, a teacher of one constituent college can always be transferred to other constituent college. Similarly, there appears no substance in the apprehension of the petitioner that in case of his transfer, he may lose a chance for his further promotion. Because promotions to higher grade has to be considered on the basis of seniority of teachers and other academic career. Therefore, simply because a teacher is transferred from one college to other, he cannot lose a chance for his promotion. 8. Therefore, having taken into consideration facts and circumstance noticed above, I find no merit in this case and the same is hereby dismissed.