ORDER M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.7.2004. 3. The appellant was a Lekhpal posted in district Aligarh. He was transferred to another Tehsil in the same district. Since he did not obey the transfer order he was suspended pending inquiry vide suspension order dated 16.10.2002. 4. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, as transfer is an exigency of service. Moreover, the appellant was transferred within the same district. Hence, there was no justification for not obeying the transfer order, and he was rightly suspended. 5. This appeal is therefore, dismissed. 6. Before parting with this case we would like to say that a large number of frivolous cases are being filed in this Court and this is one of them. The appellant was transferred within the same district and hence there was no justification for his filing a writ petition. It is because of such frivolous litigation that this Court has become overburdened. The result is that genuine cases are not being heard. It seems to us that about half the cases pending in this Court can really be categorized as artificial arrears. In other words, they are not genuine cases at all, but frivolous litigation which should be dismissed in limine at the very threshold. 7. In the past when a litigant came to a lawyer’s office there was usually a preliminary screening by the lawyer, and if there was nothing in the case, the lawyer would frankly say so to the client. But now-a-days it seems that this is hardly ever done. All kinds of cases, whether frivolous or genuine, are filed in the Court, and it is because of the frivolous case that the arrears have multiplied in this Court. 8. The learned members of the Bar belong to a noble and learned profession and hence they are expected to give correct advice and act responsibly, and not file frivolous cases in this Court or in other Courts. 9. In the present case, there was a transfer of a Government official within the same district. Surely in such matters writ petition should not have been filed at all, and the learned counsel should have advised the petitioner accordingly. 10. 9. In the present case, there was a transfer of a Government official within the same district. Surely in such matters writ petition should not have been filed at all, and the learned counsel should have advised the petitioner accordingly. 10. We were inclined to award heavy costs against the appellant but on the deep regret of the learned counsel and his assurance that in future he will be more careful we have not done so. 11. With this observation the appeal is dismissed.