Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This matter was heard yesterday. As the record refers to another petition (CWJC No. 7939 of 2000), the court sought the record of the other petition also and that has joined the record of the present letters patent appeal as also the writ petition (CWJC No. 10453 of 2001) out of which it arises. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and having perused the record of the writ petition out of which the present letters patent appeal arises and the other writ petition which has been listed, the court is constrained to observe that the petitioner-appellant has made an incorrect statement on oath. 4. For the facts noticed by the court, the petitioner-appellant made a statement in paragraph-20 of the writ petition to prejudice the court that one Manoj Kumar had not cleared the accounts examination. In paragraphs 25 & 28 of the counter affidavit of the State record for record statement has been made that Manoj Kumar has cleared the accounts examination. Thus, the statement made by the petitioner-appellant in the writ petition is a false statement. 5. In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, the petitioner tried to prejudice the court to show that the aforesaid Manoj Kumar is junior to him in service. This is not so. Paragraphs 23 & 25 of the counter affidavit of the State show that whereas the petitioner joined the service in 1983, Manoj Kumar joined the service in 1980, the dates respectively are 16 August, 1983 & 1 June, 1980. 6. For the false statements, which have been made in a writ petition whereas the court ought to have sought the record on certiorari, it left on faith that whatever has been stated on oath will be the truth and nothing but the truth. The Registrar General will file a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure noticing the false statements made in this matter as the false statement so made partake the nature of false evidence and offences against public justice under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The balance which remains in the pleadings and the record on petition is that the petitioner-appellant seems to be resisting his transfer and is not even prepared to accept the authority of his superior officer. 8. 7. The balance which remains in the pleadings and the record on petition is that the petitioner-appellant seems to be resisting his transfer and is not even prepared to accept the authority of his superior officer. 8. While learned judge has recorded that the petitioner-appellant has been in a place of posting since 1993, that is, a span of 10 years, the contention raised is that this is not correct. It is from 1996. Be that as it may, the petitioner-appellant has been at a place of posting for 9 years and it cannot be any violation of his fundamental right if he is transferred to another place. 9. The other circumstance which the court has taken into account is that this matter has given rise to another writ petition. If the petitioners statement on the point of seniority had been taken on its face value then that would have resulted in a wrong decision. The time has come that the Patna High Court should be more cautious while deciding the writ petitions. On the basis of faith the writ petitions are decided on affidavits which are meant to state the state of the record. A writ petition is against State action. The reference to a State record must be correct. This faith of misrepresenting situations in writ petitions or the reply to the writ petitions is coming often before the court. This shakes the faith of the court. Normally, when a certiorari issues, the record should be brought forth before the court. In the circumstances, let it be understood that when a certiorari issues from the High Court, the record which relates to the case should be available with the State Counsel. 10. Both the writ petitions and the present letters patent appeal are dismissed.