^N6? Writ Petition(S) No. 2026 of 2008 Raising Kooldip, S/o. Late Panchamsing Kooidip, aged about 56 years, Casts Gada (SC), R/'o. Viilage Arjuni, Tah: Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C-G). Respondents Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Sscretary, Department of Forsst, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2) The Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). 3) The Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circie, Distt. Kanker (CG). 4) The Divisionai Forest Officer, Kanker, Forest Dhrision Distt. Kanker (CG). 5) Shri P. Suresan, S/o. not known deputy Rangsr, special work Kanker Circle Distt. Kanker (CG). QA/rit Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india.) SB: Hon'bSe Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, ^. Shri Rahu! Mishra, counse! for the Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State. [Passedon 7-4-; Learned counseS appearing for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order dated 6-2-2008 (Annexure P./1) the petitioner has been shown as Forest Guard though the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger by order dated 13-10-2006 (Annexure P/3). ;jeEias^.^ /v°^\ '- -^ ^.h^- ^ ':i* 3 3i3£!^y 2) It appears to be a typographical mistake in the impugned order. The State authorities wiil make appropriate amendment in the impugned order within a period of one week. 3) The next contention of tearned counsei appearing for the petitioner is that the transfer order has been passed by the respondent No.4/Divisionat Forest Officer, whereby the petitioner is transferred from Dhanesera, Narharpur circie to special work, Narharpur circte, without obteining permission from the Conservator of Forest. The order seems to be wiftiin the forest division from one place to other place. In fact, it cannot be termed as transfer, it is just a piacement from one place to other place wiftin the same Narharpur circle. Thus, this contention deswves to be rejected on this ground alone. 4) The petitioner has not challenged the fransfer order on any other grounds. i.e. impugned placement is mala fide exereise of power. The authority is not competent or violation of any ruies or regulations. It is simple piacement within the same circle by the Divisional Forest Offlcer, who is competent to post an empioyee within his area at any p!ace. it is not for the employee to seiect a place where the employee is to work. It is for ths employer to decide as to where a partteuiar afficer/emptoyee be postsd keeping in view pubiic interest as well as administrative exigency. 5) !t is wetl settled that in case crf transfer, the High Court shouid be ioath in interfsring with the transfer matter. The facls of the present case do not warrant any interference as there is no challenge on permissibie grounds. 6) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Satish K. Judge