Judgment 1. Having heard counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 2. In pursuance of the reorganization of the then Bihar State under Bihar Reor ganization Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), under section 72 of the Act, the appellant petitioners services were allotted to Jharkhand State. 3. A tentative list was published inviting objection thereto. The appellant petitioner instead of submitting objection to the decision taken by the Union of India, submitted his option for retaining him in Bihar rather than sending him to Jharkhand cadre. This representation was not accepted, hence the petition was filed. The option in the form of representation was given for the first time in 2006 after six years of the reorganization of Bihar under which Jharkhand State was constituted. 4. The petition was filed to challenge the petitioners allotment to Jharkhand State, inter alia, on the ground that his option to remain in Bihar has not been considered before passing the final order. 5. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition observing that there is nothing to suggest that the option given by the petitioner has not been considered. 6. We are further of the opinion that there is no evidence on record rather it is now admitted that in the first instance when options were invited from the candidates whether they wanted to be retained in Bihar cadre or want to join Jharkhand cadre, no option was submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, in the Advisory Committee his application has been considered as no option having been received. If the option has not been given at the relevant time, the question of its consideration did not arise. The subsequent submission of option was too belated to be considered. In fact, the tentative list of the allotment of employees of the two States to respective cadre was published after considering the options that have been received by the Advisory Committee and objections were invited whether there has been inaccuracy in considering their cases. It was not a fresh advertisement to open Pandoras box inviting options from all the officers to offer again and make exercise totally farce. 7. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petition has rightly been dismissed. 8. No case for interference has been made out. 9. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.