ORDER : 

Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.

Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order since the issue raised in both these Writ Petitions is one and the same.

2. W.P.No.31405 of 2024 is filed by the State against the order, dated 04.10.2024 passed in O.A.No.1556 of 2024 and W.P.No.31411 of 2024 is also filed by the State against the order, dated 16.03.2022 passed in O.A.No.215 of 2016, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). In both the cases, contesting respondent is one and the same and the issue pertains to allotment of the contesting respondent (Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer) to the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh is also involved.

3. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for petitioner-State and Mr. R. Anurag, learned counsel representing learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri M. Avinash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri A. Raghu Ram, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh, appearing for respondent No.4.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.31405 of 2024 are hereunder discussed.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State had contended that the contesting respondent is an Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer from the 1994 batch, who served as Chief Conservator of Forest in the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh. Consequent upon the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, the contesting respondent was allotted to State of Andhra Pradesh by respondent No.1 on 05.03.2015, as per the guidelines framed by the Pratyush Sinha Committee. Challenging his allotment to the State of Andhra Pradesh and guidelines framed for allocation, the contesting respondent has filed O.A.No.215 of 2016 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A. by following its earlier order, dated 29.03.2016 passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 vide order, dated 16.03.2022. Learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner had further contended that the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the allocation guidelines in O.A.No.1241 of 2014, dated 29.03.2016 and directed the Union of India to allot the contesting respondent to the State of Telangana. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.215 of 2016, makes it clear that the said O.A. was allowed only on the ground that its earlier order i.e., O.A.No.1241 of 2014 was allowed vide order, dated 29.03.2016, wherein, the guidelines of allocation of Officers between the two states were held to be bad.

6. Aggrieved by the order, dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1241 of 2014, the Union of India has filed W.P.No.4938 of 2017 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated 10.01.2023 was pleased to set aside the order, dated 29.03.2016 passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 and upheld the guidelines of allocation. When the orders passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 were set aside, on the same analogy, the order, dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.215 of 2016 is also liable to be set aside. Learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the Tribunal cannot allocate the Officers to the respective states, it is only the Union of India, which has to allocate the Officers to the respective States. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of the contesting respondent. Moreover, the Tribunal has allowed O.A.No.215 of 2016 by relying on its earlier orders in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 and the orders passed in O.A.No.1241 of 2014 were set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4938 of 2017 vide order, dated 10.01.2023. However, the Union of India has not challenged the Tribunal’s order in the present case i.e., O.A.No.215 of