- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. The petitioner, who is Mines Officer in the department of Geology and Mining, U. P. , has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26-8-1997, by which he has been trans ferred from Sonebhadra to Gorakhpur. By the same order Sri Ramayan Pratap Singh, respondent No. 4, has been transferred from Gorakhpur to Sonebhadra.
(2.) SRI Ramayan Pratap Singh (Respondent No. 4) has filed counter-af fidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply there to. But neither the Government of U. P. nor the Director, Geology and Mining, U. P. (here in after referred to as the Director), have filed counter-affidavit, even though time was granted to them for the purpose. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, viz. (i) the Govern ment has abused the power of transfer by transferring the petitioner four times with in a period of about two months; and (ii) the impugned order has not been passed in public interest or on account of administrative exigencies. It has been passed in order to implement the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 27922 of 1997 and as that writ petition has already been dismissed as infructuous, the impugned order falls to the ground automatically. Learned Counsel for the respondents have disputed the above sub missions. By order dated 19-7-1997 passed by the Director the petitioner was trans ferred from Sonebhadra to Lucknow. But the petitioner did not join at Lucknow; instead he got the said order modified by order dated 5-8-1997 by which he was transferred to Gorakhpur in place of Lucknow. By the same order respondent No. 4, who was posted at Gorakhpur, was transferred from Gorakhpur to Soneb hadra. The petitioner did not join at Gorakhpur and this order also remained uncomplied with. He approached the Director again and there after the Director passed another order dated 13-8-1997 transferring him back to Sonebhadra. Consequently by the same order respon dent No. 4 was transferred from Soneb hadra to Gorakhpur. The order dated 13-8-1997 was challenged by the respondent No. 4 before this Court by writ petition No. 27922 of 1997 on the ground that the Government has abused the power of transfer by transferring him four times in about four months without any plausible justification. This Court on 22- 8-1997 passed interim order staying the operation of the order dated 13- 8-1997. Ultimately the Government of U. P. passed the im pugned order dated 26-8-1997 transfer ring the petitioner from Sonebhadra to Gorakhpur. By that very order the respon dent No. 4 was transferred from Gorakhpur to Sonebhadra.
(3.) IT is true that four orders on four different dates were passed transferring the petitioner from one place to another, but all those orders, except the impugned order, were merely paper transactions be cause he did not join at the places to which he was transferred by those orders and remained in Sonebhadra throughout. The petitioner has not stated in the writ peti tion that he joined at Lucknow or at Gorakhpur pursuant to the orders dated 19-7-1997 and 5-8-1997. In paragraph 22 of his counter- affidavit the respondent No. 4 has stated that the petitioner neither joined at Lucknow nor did he join at Gorakhpur pursuant to the transfer or ders dated 19-7-1997 and 5- 8-1997 and he continued to remain in Sonebhadra. The petitioner has not stated even in the rejoinder- affidavit that he joined at Luck-now or at Gorakhpur pursuant to the above orders. By the third order dated 13-8-1997 the petitioner's posting at Sonebhadra was restored to him. For all practical purposes the impugned order dated 26-8-1997 is the only order by which he was been transferred from Sonebhadra to Gorakhpur. Hence it cannot be said to be a case of frequent successive transfer in a short span of time. The first submission, therefore, is rejected. The second submission is also devoid of merit. It is true that the re is no mention of public interest or administra tive exigency in the impugned order, but that will not make the order bad. In the absence of such a recital in the order the burden is placed on the Government to satisfy the Court by filing affidavit or by producing any other material that those conditions are fulfilled. In this connection reference may be made to Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal U. P. and others, AIR 1961 SC 1381 and Narayan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 183. But the Government is required to satisfy the Court about the fulfilment of those conditions i. e. that the order was passed in public interest or on account of administrative exigency only when the order is challenged on such a ground sup ported by appropriate pleadings in the writ petition. In the present case although the petitioner was taken the ground that the transfer order has been passed on ex traneous political considerations, but there are no averments in the writ petition in support there of. In paragraphs No. 23, 24 and 25 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner has been given arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by periodical transfer orders and the im pugned order was obtained by the respon dent No. 4 by maneuvering. These para graphs have been sworn on the basis of legal advice and not on the basis of per sonal knowledge or on the basis of record. The questions as to whether the transfer order has been maneuvered by respondent No. 4 and is based on extraneous considerations are essentially questions of fact. Such pleadings should be verified on personal knowledge of the deponent who has sworn the affidavit or on the basis of relevant record. But that has not been done in the present case. That apart, there is no averment in the writ petition that the impugned order was not passed in public interest or on account of administrative exigency. In absence of such pleadings it was not obligatory for the Government to come forward suo moto and satisfy the Court about fulfilment of the conditions precedent.;