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. 3. 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. 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. 5. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Petitioner has specifically stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 and ground 4 of the writ petition that the post of Pharmacist was vacant in city Mau. It is evident from An-nexure C. A. 3 filed by the respondent No. 4 along with his counter affidavit that on 12-10-95 respondent No. 3 had informed the respondent No. 1 that there was. no vacancy in city Mau hospital and petitioner cannot be accommodated in that hospital. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not given any explanation whatsoever as under what circumstances the petitioner has stated that there was vacancy in the hospital in question, rather the petitioner has ex plained in the rejoinder affidavit that proper reply to the said averments would be given at the time of hearing. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner could not furnish any explanation as under what circumstances the petitioner has made this averment and this Court treating it to be true had passed the order dated 6-2-96 for giving the charge to the petitioner and in consequence to which the respondent No. 4 had been transferred from city Mau to Pilibhhit. 8. In S. P. Chengalyaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "the Courts of law are meant for imparting of justice between the parties. 8. In S. P. Chengalyaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and others, 1994 (1) SCC 1 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "the Courts of law are meant for imparting of justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous person from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal- gains indefinitely. We have no hesita tion to say that a person whos case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. " 9. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 852 ; G. Narainswami Ready v. Govern ment of Kamataka and others, AIR 1991 SC 1726 and K. R. Srinivas v. R. M. Premchand andothers, 1994 (6) SCC 620 . 10. In Afzal and another v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) J. T 328, the Supreme Court has categorically held that filing false affidavit before the Court amounts to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2 (b) and it further amounts to interference with the administration of justice. 11. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in All India State Bank Of ficers Federation and others v. Union of India and others, 1996 (8) JT 550 : 1997 (1) LBESR 145 (SC ). 12. Thus, in view of the above I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made false averments and interfered with the administration of justice andprima facie he seems to have committed Contempt of Court. 13. Thus, the interim order dated 6-2-1996 is here by discharged. The respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to relieve the petitioner for thwith and cancel the transfer order of respondent No. 4 dated 11 - 6-96 and reposthimatmau. 14. Registry of this Court is directed to issue notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for committing contempt of Court under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 14. Registry of this Court is directed to issue notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted for committing contempt of Court under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Registry is further directed to send a cer tified copy of this order to the respondents No. 2 and 3 for compliance and to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau to ensure the presence of the petitioner in per son before this Court on 14-2-1997. 15. List this matter peremtorily on 14-2-1997, for further directions. Interim order vacated. .