CWP No. 2003 of 2009 14.7.2009 Present: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Davinder Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2. The petitioner was transferred from Development Block, Bangana to Development Block, Mashobra vide notification dated 2.9.2008. He joined his duties at Development Block, Mashobra on 3.9.2008. He was transferred from Development Block, Mashobra to Development Block, Basantpur vice Shri Jameet Singh vide notification dated 17.6.2009. Mr. P.P. Chauhan strenuously argues that transfer of the petitioner is on the basis of complaint dated 28.1.2009. He contends that transfer of the petitioner is not in public interest but the same has been effected to accommodate the private respondent. The learned Advocate General has supported the notification dated 17.6.2009. We have heard the parties and gone through the record carefully. In order to ascertain whether the transfer of the petitioner is based on complaint dated 28.1.2009 or not, we have perused the record produced by the State. We have not come across any material or fact after going through the record to suggest even remotely that the transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of complaint dated 28.1.2009. The transfer on the face of it has been effected in public interest and is not on the basis of complaint. The State Government has filed the affidavit disclosing therein that the transfer of the petitioner was effected on the basis of complaint without ascertaining the record. The State Government is directed to be more cautious in future while filing the affidavits. The affidavits must be based on record. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has also relied upon Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, 2009 (2) SCC 592. We have gone through the judgment. In that case transfer was in fact based on complaint. In the present case, it is not borne out from the record that the transfer of the petitioner is on the basis of complaint. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 14, 2009. (cr)