JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 30.09.2021 (Annex. 2) passed by the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan Jaipur whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Dungar College, Bikaner to Government College, Hada. 3. It is, inter-alia, claimed in the writ petition that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner from Bikaner to Hada is not justified, inasmuch as, as per the respondents' own Policy, minimum 20 students are required for running a course at a given college, however, at Hada, only 8 students have registered themselves for the course, which the petitioner is likely to teach and as such as per the State's own Policy, the transfer of the petitioner to Hada is not justified. 4. Submissions have also been made that at Bikaner, four scholars are undertaking their Ph. D. under the petitioner and in case the petitioner is transferred to Hada, which is about 80 KM away, the students would suffer. 5. Submissions have also been made that the Commissioner, College Education is not competent to transfer the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner is an Associate Professor and once his grade pay is more than Rs. 5,400/- the order could only be passed by the Secretary of the Department and as the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same deserves to be quashed on the said ground alone. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the amendment made in the Rajasthan Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 made submissions that the post of Lecturer has been substituted with that of Assistant Professor and the next promotional post is Associate Professor, on which the petitioner was promoted by order dated 13.12.2018 and in the order of promotion, his grade pay has been indicated at Rs. 9,000/-. Reference was also made to the Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and it was submitted that from the said Selection Committee, it is apparent that selection of the petitioner is done at the State level and as such the Commissioner is not competent to transfer the petitioner. 7. It was thus prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside. 7. It was thus prayed that the order impugned be quashed and set aside. Reliance was place on interim orders dated 01.10.2021 passed in Krishan Murari Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11220/2021 at Jaipur Bench, which in turn had relied on order dated 13.01.2017 passed in Ms. Parul Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 621/2017 at Jaipur Bench. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, questioning the order of transfer, does not call for any interference by this Court, inasmuch as the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred on account of administrative exigency and cannot claim as of right to remain posted at Bikaner. Submissions have also been made that the policy, which is sought to be relied on by the petitioner, seeking to question his transfer stands amended by which the number instead of 20 students has been reduced to 5 due to COVID-19 vide order dated 26.1.02021 (sic) (Annex. R/1). 9. Further submissions have been made that merely because certain scholars are doing their Ph. D. under the petitioner, cannot be a reason for petitioner continuing to stay at Bikaner. 10. The issue of competence has been deal with by response to the additional affidavit, wherein it is claimed that aspect is governed by the orders dated 25.01.2012 (Annex. R/2) and 09.12.2014 (Annex. R/3), which specifically provide that the Commissioner, College Education is the competent authority to pass orders of transfer/posting etc. The orders have to be issued after the same are approved by the concerned minister. 11. Submissions have also been made that the interim orders sought to be relied on by the petitioner, passed at Jaipur Bench, were made based on wrong concession given by the counsel appearing for the State and that in the pending maters at Jaipur Bench also, a response has been filed contesting the petitions and as such the petitioner cannot seek any indulgence based on interim orders passed at Jaipur Bench. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 13. Insofar as the plea raised by the petitioner with regard to number of students at Hada and the fact that four students are undertaking Ph. D. under the petitioner at Bikaner is concerned, the said aspects have been noticed for rejection only, inasmuch as from documents Annex. R/1, placed on record by the respondents, it is apparent that the number of 20 students sought to be relied on by the petitioner based on the Policy already stand amended to 5 students and admittedly 8 students are available at Hada. 14. The mere fact that certain scholars are undertaking Ph. D. under the petitioner cannot be a reason enough not to transfer the petitioner, inasmuch as in case the same argument is accepted, in that case, any Associate Professor, could never be transferred, inasmuch as one after another the Ph. D. scholars keep getting registered under the guidance of the Associate Professor. Besides the same, the Professor is only required to guide the Ph. D. students and they are not required to be taught every day and the guidance can very well be provided from Hada as well. 15. Coming to the issue of competence of the Commissioner to pass orders for transfer of the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner has produced for perusal of the Court the order of appointment of the petitioner as Associate Professor, which order also has been issued by the Commissioner, College Education. 16. Learned counsel attempted to refer to the opening part of the order, wherein it is indicated that based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and as per the letter of the State Government, the petitioner was accorded appointment; merely because the selection has taken place by Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the Rules, and the same has been approved by the State, does not change the character of the order wherein the appointment has been made by the Commissioner, College Education. Once the order of appointment has been passed by the Commissioner, College Education, he ipso-facto becomes entitled to pass appropriate orders for posting/transfer. 17. The orders produced by the State as Annex. R/2 and Annex. Once the order of appointment has been passed by the Commissioner, College Education, he ipso-facto becomes entitled to pass appropriate orders for posting/transfer. 17. The orders produced by the State as Annex. R/2 and Annex. R/3 alongwith additional affidavit, clearly prescribe the procedure and the competence of the officer for passing orders of posting, transfer etc., wherein as noticed herein before, the Commissioner, College Education, has been authorized by order dated 09.12.2014 by clarifying the order dated 25.01.2012 to indicate that the competent authority would be Commissioner, College Education and that the order was required to be passed under the directions and approval of the concerned minister. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner based on the said documents, Annex. R/2 and R/3, also attempted to make submission that even the order dated 25.01.2012 has not been followed while passing the order dated 30.09.2021 (Annex. 2). The said submission also apparently is incorrect, inasmuch as the order in question dated 30.09.2021 has been endorsed to the Private Secretary of the concerned Minister in reference to his communication of the same day i.e. 30.09.2021, which clearly shows that the order has been passed as per the directions/with the approval of the concerned minister. 19. The orders cited by counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance to the petitioner, inasmuch as besides the fact that both the orders are interim orders only, the order in the case of Ms. Parul Singh (supra) was passed based on concession of the counsel and the court expressing doubt on the said concession, which has been followed in the case of Krishan Murari Meena (supra). 20. In view of above factual and legal position, no case for interference in the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 (Annex. 2) is made out. The petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.