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. 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 and again and the request of the petitioner is not tenable. The request of the petitioner for allotment to Andhra Pradesh cannot be maintained in the light of administrative complications. Further, the issue may lead to multiplication of legal complications on the ground that his request will affect his juniors who preferred allotment to respective States and allotted accordingly keeping in view the reorganization guidelines, as there are no vacancies in the category of Assistant Conservator of Forests. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the OA. 5. The 5th respondent filed counter reiterating the averments made in the counter filed by the Respondents 1 to 4. 6. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the OA. 5. The 5th respondent filed counter reiterating the averments made in the counter filed by the Respondents 1 to 4. 6. The unofficial respondent No.6 filed counter affidavit along with Vacate Petition in I.A.No.2 of 2019 stating that the by virtue of status quo order dated 21.12.2015, the petitioner is continuing in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent is put to disadvantage and hardship. The respondent is working as Forest Range Officer, Macherla in Guntur District and because of continuation of the petitioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the promotional avenues of the 6th respondent is being delayed, since one post in the category of Assistant Conservator of Forest is blocked. The petitioner kept on changing the options and finally he was allocated to State of Telangana. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the OA on the ground that under the guidelines for allocation, all the employees were given the options at two different stages and the petitioner having opted to State of Telangana, cannot be go back on the same. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini as the petitioner could not show any violation of his right or violation of any duty or obligation caste upon the respondents. 7. Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that initially the petitioner was allotted to State of Andhra Pradesh vide Notification dated 2.6.2015 and subsequently, before making final allotment, he made another representation on 16.6.2015 for allotment to State of Telangana, which he has withdrawn the said request through representation dated 11.8.2015 prior to making final allotment through G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 8.12.2015. The petitioner has been deprived his right to be considered for allotment to State of Andhra Pradesh, even though there was four months time for final allocation of the employees. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Telangana Judges Association and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 18 SCC 769 , wherein the allocation of the Judicial Officers of the Telangana State was dealt with. 8. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Telangana Judges Association and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2019) 18 SCC 769 , wherein the allocation of the Judicial Officers of the Telangana State was dealt with. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I would contend that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise this lis inasmuch as the petitioner has been allotted to State of Telangana as per his option and because of his continuation in the State of Andhra Pradesh, one post of Assistant Conservator of Forest is blocked. 9. We, having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the counsel and perused the record found that pursuant to the option exercised by the petitioner for allotment to either of the State, he was allotted to State of Andhra Pradesh vide tentative Notification dated 2.6.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.6.2015 to allot him to State of Telangana and further made a representation dated 11.8.2015 withdrawing his request dated 16.6.2015 and requested to allot him to State of Andhra Pradesh. The Original Application filed by the petitioner was elaborately considered by the Tribunal and dismissed the OA. The Tribunal specifically stated that the petitioner is a native of Telangana State and having local status in Telangana State, he being native of Khammam District of Telangana State. The scheme under the Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014 and the procedure for allocation of persons contained in the guidelines issued by the Central Government, provide for two stages of opportunities to the Government servant during the allocation process. First being the Government servant is given the liberty to give option for allocating him to a particular State out of the two bifurcated States and second, being the after tentative allocation of the Government servant, the Government servant is given further opportunity to send online representation/objection to the tentative allocation within 14 days and to send hardcopy thereof through the Head of department concerned. Thereafter, the Government Servant is not provided with any third opportunity as per the scheme and guidelines. In the present case, the petitioner gave third option through letter dated 11.8.2015 beyond two weeks/14 days of publication of tentative allocation for which there is no provision. Thereafter, the Government Servant is not provided with any third opportunity as per the scheme and guidelines. In the present case, the petitioner gave third option through letter dated 11.8.2015 beyond two weeks/14 days of publication of tentative allocation for which there is no provision. The Tribunal further held that in the absence of any such provision, the administrative mechanism under the State Re-organization relating to allocation of employees, did not take note of the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should have been given third opportunity for changing option has no legs to stand, since the A.P. Reorganization Act, only two opportunities are provided, which the petitioner has availed. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that continuance of the petition will not affect in any manner anybody. The said contention holds no water since after final allocation of all the posts in the cadre, there are no posts left to be allocated, particularly in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.6 also contends that by virtue of continuation of the petitioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the promotional avenues of the 6th respondent and others were delayed and one post of Assistant Conservator of Forest is blocked for which seniors to the 6th respondent and himself are eligible. The judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Looking from any angle, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and law on the subject and dismissed the Original Application and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities and error of fact and law, which warrants interference from this Court, by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a writ of certiorari. 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.