Judment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Advocate General with Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondent NO.3. None for respondent NO.4. Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the Interveners. They are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 25-06-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 671 of 2007 (S/S). 3. Appellant Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "* Issue a writ of certiorari and 1 or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ 1 order 1 direction, quashing the office memo 1 order number 250/Pras Chis Vaapak/2007 dated 21st May, 2007 issued by the respondent number one (Annexure Number 10) requiring that the petitioner be relieved for U.P. and any consequent relieving order passed by any other authority. * Issue a writ of prohibition and 1 or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the respondents not to relieve the petitioner from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of U.P. * Graciously be pleased to pass any such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of this case. * Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner against the respondents." 4. The appellant, in substance, was challenging the impugned order dated 21-05-2007, whereby the petitioner, on the consensus of both the State Governments i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand, on his representation, was transferred and relieved for his joining in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. Appellant 1 petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, who was working as Drug Inspector at the time of reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, opted for State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2000-2001. Assuming that the petitioner was junior most in the cadre, he was allocated to the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). 5. Appellant 1 petitioner Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, who was working as Drug Inspector at the time of reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, opted for State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2000-2001. Assuming that the petitioner was junior most in the cadre, he was allocated to the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). Being aggrieved of his allocation to the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner made a representation in the year 2005 specifically stating therein that he was wrongly treated as junior most; he was domicile of Uttar Pradesh; he opted for the State of Uttar Pradesh; and his old parents were residing in Uttar Pradesh and he was finding it difficult to maintain them while serving in the State of Uttarakhand. Before his representation could be considered by the two State Governments, the petitioner stood finally allocated to the State of Uttarakhand. Thereafter, the two State Governments i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand, in compliance of the order passed by the Union of India providing for transfer of the employees finally allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand, on a consensus between the two States, agreed to accept the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking his allocation to the State of Uttar Pradesh. As a sequel to the above, the impugned order dated 21-05-2007 was passed, whereby the petitioner was relieved for his joining in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Single Judge resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 25-06-2007. 7. Mr. A. Rab, the learned counsel for the appellant, referring to Sections 73, 74 and 77 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 and placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs. P.K. Roy and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 850, vehemently argued that the two State Governments i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of petitioner's transfer to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 8. Mr. P.K. Roy and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 850, vehemently argued that the two State Governments i.e. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttarakhand had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of petitioner's transfer to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 8. Mr. L.P. Naithani, the learned Advocate General, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 21-05-2007 passed by the State of Uttarakhand, whereby the petitioner was relieved for his joining in the State of Uttar Pradesh and submitted that the State of Uttarakhand, if at all is guilty of anything, it is only of showing sympathy to the petitioner in favourably considering his representation on humanitarian grounds. 9. The appellant, admittedly, opted for State of Uttar Pradesh initially in the year 2000-2001. He again expressed his desire to serve in the State of Uttar Pradesh while submitting his representation in the year 2005. The petitioner, now; should not have any grievance when he is getting the State of Uttar Pradesh, which has been the State of his choice all through right from the year 2000-2001, when he exercised his initial option and again in the year 2005, when he submitted his representation against his allocation to the State of Uttarakhand. 10. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs. P.K. Roy and others (supra) is apparently misplaced, as the facts in that case were entirely different from the peculiar facts of the present case. 11. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which may warrant interference in this Special Appeal. 12. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. 13. With the above order, CLMA No. 1849 of 2007 (Intervention Application) also stands disposed of.