CWP No. 1615 of 2008. 10.9. 2008 Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioner has assailed the order of transfer dated 29.5.2008 and order dated 23.8.2008 passed on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner after being aggrieved by his transfer order has approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, while considering the Original Application on the request of the petitioner, directed the State Government to consider his Original Application as representation before the State Government. In the circumstances, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has challenged his transfer order before the Tribunal, but for the reasons best known to him, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to treat his Original Application as representation. We further do not find anywhere that the petitioner has prayed for liberty to challenge the transfer order at a later stage. Therefore, the petitioner now through this petition cannot challenge the transfer order. The State Government in light of the directions issued by the Tribunal, considered the representation of the petitioner and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner decided the same by an order dated 23rd August, 2008. The petitioner has challenged this order of rejection of his representation before this court, which is to be considered on its merit. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in light of the government policy, the petitioner could not have been transferred. The petitioner is to be given place of convenience. The transfer policy relied upon by the petitioner is as follows:- “In case of officers/ officials likely to retire within two years, efforts should be made to give them postings in areas as convenient as possible subject to vacancy.” It has been pointed out on behalf of the State that the petitioner has been adjusted at the place of his choice, however, in a different office. Further it has been contended that the petitioner cannot claim a particular posting in a particular station before his retirement. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has intervened and submitted that his prayer before the Administrative Tribunal was that respondents be directed to allow the applicant to continue as Forest Range Officer in Swan Project till his retirement. No such direction was issued by the Tribunal on the ground that learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Tribunal that this be considered to be his representation. The direction sought later on was considered by the State Government and it had expressed that the contention “service of station should be asked for also does not hold good as transfer policy also speaks of stations of choice and not posting of choice.” It means the petitioner has asked for posting of choice, which is not part of the transfer policy. We have further examined the transfer policy and we find that only effort has to be made by the State Government if there is a vacancy, as referred hereinabove. Since the petitioner has only asked for choice of posting and not the station, the same has been rejected. This court is of the considered opinion that to keep the retiring officer at a station of choice is total domain of the State Government and this court would not like to walk into the administrative domain of the State Government. It has been further clarified by learned Advocate General that the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2008 clearly indicates that petitioner has been retained at the same station i.e. Amb in the light of the policy. In the above circumstances, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has been adjusted at the same station but on a different post. In light of above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications. ( Jagdish Bhalla ), Chief Justice. September 10, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.