ORDER : P.Naveen Rao, J. Heard Sri J Sudheer, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor learned standing counsel for High Court for the State of Telangana. 2. On 15.4.2017, Government of Telangana and Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a joint notification calling for applications for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). Four posts were notified. Two posts for Open Competition out of which one is reserved for women; one post for BC (B); and one post for ST. Petitioner applied and participated in the recruitment process. Based on the performance in the written examination, six candidates were called for interview including the petitioner. On 11.12.2017 oral interview was held. Vide letter dated 6.2.2018 petitioner was asked to submit proof of list of cases that have been handled by her. 3. In response, vide letter dated 17.2.2018 petitioner submitted details of cases handled by her. On 7.6.2018 final results were announced and uploaded on the website. Three candidates were declared as provisionally included in the select list, namely Anil Kiran Kumar Gadela (OC), Vasanthi Anaparthy (C-W), Murali Mohan kannoju (BC-B). Selection of Murali Mohan was made subject to result of SLP (C ) NO. 14156 of 2016 pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as he was working as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and was permitted to participate in the recruitment process pursuant to orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P (Civil) No. 316 of 2017. 4. Having come to know that Murali Mohan Kannoju was not qualified and participated in the recruitment because of interim order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner filed intervention application and modification application in W.P. (C) No. 316 of 2017. He also filed application dated 11.6.2018 under Right to Information Act, requesting to furnish marks list of the petitioner. Petitioner contends that she is more meritorious than Murali Mohan and Murali Mohan was wrongly selected. Petitioner also comes to know that she was not selected on the ground that she submitted false information on cases handled by her. 5. Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 933 of 2018 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the provisional selection of Murali Mohan and to appoint her. Petitioner also comes to know that she was not selected on the ground that she submitted false information on cases handled by her. 5. Petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 933 of 2018 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the provisional selection of Murali Mohan and to appoint her. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.8.2019 disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach Registrar (Administration) for verification of alleged false information and if not satisfied with information to pursue grievance before the High court. 6. After securing the information under the Right to Information Act, petitioner filed detailed representation dated 12.2.2019 addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana. The Registrar (Administration) cum Registrar (Recruitment) rejected the application. 7. To complete the narration, Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020 and batch holding that a person has to be in continuous practice for seven years by the time recruitment notification is issued to acquire eligibility and a serving Judge in lower cadre is not eligible to participate in direct recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). Consequently, the appointment of Murali Mohan as District Judge (Entry Level) was cancelled and he was posted back to Senior civil Judge cadre. 8. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the appointment of second respondent as District Judge (Entry Level) and seeks consequential direction to appoint her as District Judge (Entry Level). 9. To revert to recruitment notification stage, it is a combined notification for posts of District Judge (Entry Level) in both states. By the time notification was issued, separate High court for State of Andhra Pradesh was not established. The High Court at Hyderabad was made a combined High Court for both states w.e.f. 2.6.2014 and continued as such till 31.12.2018. Pursuant to the combined notification, the then High Court for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh conducted the recruitment process and finalized the selections. Out of three candidates selected, two were appointed in Telangana and second respondent in Andhra Pradesh. After the bifurcation the candidate appointed in the State of Andhra Pradesh is working in that State. 10. Out of three candidates selected, two were appointed in Telangana and second respondent in Andhra Pradesh. After the bifurcation the candidate appointed in the State of Andhra Pradesh is working in that State. 10. The conditions of service of the post of District Judge (entry Level) are governed by rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution known as Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Services Rules, 2007 and the State Government is the employer but High court is the cadre controlling authority. Though, post of District Judge (Entry Level) is a State Cadre post as High Court was common to both States, High court at Hyderabad conducted the recruitment. Once recruitment process was over and candidates are appointed in a State, he belongs to that state and the Government of that State has power to appoint and remove a District Judge based on the advise of the High court of that State. 11. The second respondent is an officer of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of State of Andhra Pradesh is appointing authority and High Court of Andhra Pradesh is the cadre controlling authority. 12. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of appointment of second respondent. According to section 30, [30. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad to be common High Court till establishment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh: (1) On and from the appointed day,–– (a) the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall be the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is constituted under article 214 of the Constitution read with section 31 of this Act; (b) the Judges of the High Court at Hyderabad for the existing State of Andhra Pradesh holding office immediately before the appointed day shall become on that day the Judges of the common High Court. (2) The expenditure in respect of salaries and allowances of the Judges of the common High Court shall be allocated amongst the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on the basis of population ratio.] of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 (Act 2014), the High court at Hyderabad was to be common High court for both States till separate High court is formed for the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to Section 31, [31. According to Section 31, [31. High Court of Andhra Pradesh: (1) Subject to the provisions of section 30, there shall be a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh) and the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad shall become the High Court for the State of Telangana (hereinafter referred to as the High Court at Hyderabad). (2) The principal seat of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall be at such place as the President may, by notified order, appoint. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Judges and division courts of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh may sit at such other place or places in the State of Andhra Pradesh other than its principal seat as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, appoint.] of the Act, 2014 there should be separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. 13. Section 33, [33. Jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court :The High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall have, in respect of any part of the territories included in the State of Andhra Pradesh, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as, under the law in force immediately before the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30, are exercisable in respect of that part of the said territories by the High Court at Hyderabad.] of the Act, 2014 deals with jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. According to this Section, the Andhra Pradesh High Court shall have jurisdiction over residuary State of Andhra Pradesh after bifurcation. 14. Section 40, [40. Transfer of proceedings from Hyderabad High Court to Andhra Pradesh High Court. Right to appear or to act in proceedings transferred to Andhra Pradesh High Court :(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Hyderabad shall, as from the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30, have no jurisdiction in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Transfer of proceedings from Hyderabad High Court to Andhra Pradesh High Court. Right to appear or to act in proceedings transferred to Andhra Pradesh High Court :(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Hyderabad shall, as from the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30, have no jurisdiction in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh. (2) Such proceedings pending in the High Court at Hyderabad immediately before the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30 as are certified, whether before or after that day, by the Chief Justice of that High Court, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances, to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall, as soon as may be after such certification, be transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section or in section 33, but save as hereinafter provided, the High Court at Hyderabad shall have, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall not have, jurisdiction to entertain, hear or dispose of appeals, applications for leave to the Supreme Court, applications for review and other proceedings where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any order passed by the High Court at Hyderabad before the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30: Provided that if after any such proceedings have been entertained by the High Court at Hyderabad, it appears to the Chief Justice of that High Court that they ought to be transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he shall order that they shall be so transferred, and such proceedings shall thereupon be transferred accordingly. (4) Any order made by the High Court at Hyderabad–– (a) before the date referred to in sub-section (1) of section 30, in any proceedings transferred to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of sub-section (2), or (b) in any proceedings with respect to which the High Court at Hyderabad retains jurisdiction by virtue of sub-section (3), shall for all purposes have effect, not only as an order of the High Court at Hyderabad, but also as an order made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.] sub section (1) clearly holds that High Court at Hyderabad shall have no jurisdiction in respect of State of Andhra Pradesh from the appointed day, i.e., 1.1.2019. As per Sub Section (2) any proceedings pending in the High court at Hyderabad immediately before the appointed day i.e., 1.1.2019, having regard to the place of accrual of the cause of action and other circumstances to be proceedings which ought to be heard and decided by the High Court of A.P, ought to be transferred to Andhra Pradesh High court. 15. Cumulative reading of these provisions make it clear that if the cause of action arose within the territory of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High court alone has jurisdiction and the Telangana High court has no jurisdiction to deal with such matters. 16. As noticed earlier, the recruitment notification was jointly issued by the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to make recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in both the States. As the High Court at Hyderabad was common for both states, it has made the recruitment and recommended to both States for appointment. In the said manner, second respondent was appointed in the State of Andhra Pradesh. He is an officer of State of Andhra Pradesh. He is under the administrative and disciplinary control of High Court for Andhra Pradesh. 17. Thus, as petitioner is aggrieved by appointment of second respondent as District Judge (Entry Level) in State of Andhra Pradesh, the cause of action arose in that State. Therefore, the Andhra Pradesh High court alone has jurisdiction to decide the legality of second respondent appointment. 18. Letter dated 6.2.2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association was taken up as a case. Therefore, the Andhra Pradesh High court alone has jurisdiction to decide the legality of second respondent appointment. 18. Letter dated 6.2.2019 sent by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association was taken up as a case. In Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Vs Union of India, (2019) 2 ALD 151 FB the Hon’ble Court held as under: “10. Sub-section (1) of Section 40 makes it clear that except as provided thereafter in the Act of 2014, the Hyderabad High Court is to have no jurisdiction in respect of the present State of Andhra Pradesh once a separate High Court is constituted for the said State under Article 214 of the Constitution. Sub-section (2) of Section 40 provides for the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court certifying the cases pending before the Hyderabad High Court which ought to be heard and decided by the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh and upon such certification by the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court, all such cases are to be transferred to the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Subsection (3) of Section 40 begins with a non obstante clause and states that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 40 or anything contained in Section 33, which deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but save as provided in the said sub-section itself, the Hyderabad High Court would continue to have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh, to entertain, hear or dispose of appeals, applications for leave to the Supreme Court, applications for review and other proceedings where any such proceedings seek relief in respect of any order passed by the common High Court at Hyderabad before the constitution of a separate High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The proviso to Section 40(3) however states that if any such proceedings were entertained by the Hyderabad High Court but it appears to the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court that they ought to be transferred to the newly constituted High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he can order that they shall be so transferred and such proceedings shall thereupon be transferred accordingly. Sub-section (4) of Section 40 has no bearing on the issue on hand.” 19. Sub-section (4) of Section 40 has no bearing on the issue on hand.” 19. Therefore, the Andhra Pradesh High Court alone has jurisdiction to decide the legality of second respondent appointment. 20. It is also appropriate to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court only gave liberty to petitioner to submit application on her grievance but has not specified to which High Court. He may be justified in applying to the High Court at Hyderabad for eliciting information, as recruitment process was undertaken by this High Court. Once information was made available, the petitioner had to chose next course of action. Though, all along and even in this writ petition, petitioner was contending against selection of Murali Mohan, but in the writ petition no declaration is sought against his appointment and to appoint petitioner but challenge in the writ petition is against appointment of second respondent only, who is working in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, petitioner ought to have represented to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and pursued the matter thereon. 21. Thus, having regard to main relief sought in the writ petition challenging the appointment of second respondent, an officer of State of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has no jurisdiction to test the validity of appointment of second respondent and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. It is accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits. It is open to petitioner to work out his remedies. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.