Under the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, government servants are given two opportunities to express their preference for allocation to a particular state. There is no provision for a third opportunity to change the option.

ORDER :

M. Ganga Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2015 in O.A.No.6925 of 2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the Original Application was filed by the petitioner challenging G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 08.12.2015 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as the petitioner is concerned allotting him to Telangana State has been dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Forest Range Officer in the year 1992 in Zone-V, which now comes under the State of Telangana. The petitioner was further promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests in the year 2010. The Composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into Residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and new State of Telangana with effect from 2.6.2014. In view of A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 (in short ‘the Act, 2014), the petitioner submitted his option for allotment to either of the State as per his eligibility as such, the petitioner was allotted to State of Andhra Pradesh vide Notification dated 02.06.2015. After issuing the tentative allotment, the petitioner made an application to allot him to State of Telangana instead of Andhra Pradesh on16.6.2015. Subsequently, before finalization of permanent allotment, the petitioner made another application on 11.8.2015 withdrawing the earlier request made for allotment to the State of Telangana instead of State of Andhra Pradesh. However, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 16.6.2015 allotting the petitioner to the State of Telangana. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6925 of 2015 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the OA, by order dated 16.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioner gave third option through letter dated 11.8.2015 beyond two weeks/14 days of publication of tentative allocation and there is no provision therefor and in the absence of any such provision, the administrative mechanism under the State Reorganization relating to allocation of employees did not take note of the same and after allocation of all the posts in the cadre, there are no posts left to be allocated, particularly in Telangana State. Assailing the said impugned order of the Tribunal, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. This Court passed an order dated 21.12.2015 to maintain status-quo of the petitioner as on that date.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 along with Vacate Petition in W.V.M.P.No.3341 of 2016 stating that the petitioner filed his option for allotment to either of the States of Andhra Pradesh or Telangana as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 29.10.2014 communicated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.312 dated 30.10.2014. After considering the options exercised by the employees, the Committee has tentatively allocated the employees to the respective successor State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana vide Notification dated 02.06.2015 and called for objections, if any, from the employees aggrieved by their tentative allocation by giving 14 days time for submitting their representations. The petitioner submitted his representation to consider his case for allotment to Telangana State. The said representation was considered by the State Advisory Committee in its meeting on 7.8.2015 and accepted his request and adjusted him against the vacancy that arose after 1.6.2014 due to retirement/death of other employees. Finally, he was allotted to Telangana State vide Order dated 30.11.2015 of Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personal Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, which was published by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 8.12.2015. The State Advisory Committee has given sufficient time to the petitioner for preferring his allotment to his desired State and has availed the opportunity. This has become an outlandish practice to the petitioner to change his preference again a