- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing man damus commanding the respondents No. 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to join and work as Pharmacist in city Mau Hospital as the petitioner had been transferred from Chandpur (Pilibhit) to city Mau vide order dated 21-7-95 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that in-spite of the said transfer order dated 21-7-95 the petitioner had been relieved from his earlier posting on 28-9-95 vide relieving order contained in Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition: THE petitioner reported to the transferred place on 4-10-95 but he was not allowed to join there in spite of the fact that there was clear vacancy. The instant writ petition was filed on 17-10-95 and this Court vide order dated 18-10-95 granted three weeks' time to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and other respondents to file the counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit was filed and when this writ petition was listed again on 6-2- 96 this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to join in City Mau on the post of Pharmacist treating the averments/allegations made in the writ petition to be true. In pursuance of the order of this Court the petitioner was allowed to join in city Mau. However, the person, who was working in City Mau was transferred to Chandpur (Pilibhit) in order to accommodate the petitioner vide order dt. 11-6-1996 contained in Annexure C. A.-4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the person holding the charge of Pharmacist at Mau preferred a writ petition No. 24162 of 1996 and this Court vide its order dated 5-8-96 dismissed the said writ petition with the observations that he should file an ap plication for impleadment and stay vacation in the writ petition filed by the present petitioner. The said person filed the ap plication in the instant writ petition and applied for vacating the stay order and this Court had impleaded him as respondent No. 4 vide order dated 30-11-96. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as by newly impleaded respon dent No. 4.
(3.) THE common ground on which the respondents had based their case is that the petitioner had been transferred to city Mau despite the fact that there was no vacancy in city Mau and respondent No. 4 had been working and had not been transferred from city Mau either by the same transfer order dated 21-7- 96 or by any other subsequent transferor order and it was factually incor rect that the petitioner was not allowed to join at Mau inspite of there being clear vacancy. Heard Shri S. K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri R. N. Shuk-la, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3.;