ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner herein had joined as an Assistant, on 26.04.2004, in the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. After various promotions, in the year 2018, he had been working as a Deputy Section Officer. By this time, there had been a bifurcation of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh into the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. Consequent to this bifurcation, the employees of the High Court were also required to give their options, as to whether they would serve in the High Court of Telangana or the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as and when the combined High Court was bifurcated. The guidelines for making such options were set out vide Roc.No.615/SO/RO/2014 dated 01.11.2018, issued by the Registrar General of the combined High Court. The petitioner had initially opted for the High Court of Telangana and, by proceedings dated 31.12.2018, had been allotted to the said High Court. 3. Though, the petitioner had been allotted to the High Court of Telangana, he was deputed to work in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as Deputy Section Officer. This deputation was caused by the fact that the number of Deputy Section officers, who had opted to serve in the High court of Telangana, was more than the available posts. As such, the petitioner was deputed to work in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. In pursuance of the said deputation, the petitioner reported for duty at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 04.01.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 10.01.2019, addressed a letter to the Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, requesting for reallocation to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, instead of the High Court for the State of Telangana, after retaining his seniority in the cadre of Deputy Section Officer, in the composite High Court at Hyderabad. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 10.01.2019, addressed a letter to the Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, requesting for reallocation to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, instead of the High Court for the State of Telangana, after retaining his seniority in the cadre of Deputy Section Officer, in the composite High Court at Hyderabad. The Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, on 18.01.2019, issued proceedings bearing Roc.No.607/D/Estt./2019, modifying the initial allocation proceedings and reallocated about 12 officials of the High Court for the State of Telangana to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as requested by the said persons. The petitioner was shown at Sl.No.8 of the said list of such officers/employees. 5. This reallocation done by the Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, was accepted by the proceedings of the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, bearing Roc.No.78/2019-Estt., dated 01.03.2019. In this manner, the petitioner was allocated to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and continued to work as a Deputy Section Officer in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The very same proceedings also stipulated that the 12 persons mentioned in the proceedings dated 01.03.2019, would be placed at the bottom of the employees, who had already been allocated to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in their respective cadres for the purpose of reckoning their seniority. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by such fixation of seniority, made a representation to the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 08.03.2019 seeking protection of their seniority in the combined High Court. This representation was rejected by the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings Roc.No.170/2019/Estt/18, dated 18.04.2019. This order of rejection was passed in view of the report of the Special Committee, which had been approved by the Full Court on 13.02.2019. 7. This decision, relating to fixation of seniority of the petitioner and other 11 persons mentioned above, was challenged by way of W.P.No. 8652 of 2019 filed by the writ petitioner herein along with 18 others. 7. This decision, relating to fixation of seniority of the petitioner and other 11 persons mentioned above, was challenged by way of W.P.No. 8652 of 2019 filed by the writ petitioner herein along with 18 others. In this writ petition, a counter was filed, on behalf of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, stating that the proceedings of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 18.01.2019 had been a unilateral decision, which had been issued without any knowledge or consent of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and as such, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was entitled to fix the seniority by reallocating and placing the persons of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at the bottom of the seniority list. The petitioner, had then, sought to withdraw from W.P.No.8652 of 2019 to initiate fresh action. For this purpose, an application was made by him and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw his name from the writ petition, with leave, by order dated 04.03.2022. 8. The petitioner had, thereupon, made a representation dated 25.10.2020 to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to reallocate the petitioner, to the High Court of Telangana, since supernumerary posts had already been created by the High Court for the State of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 19.12.2019 and as such the petitioner could be accommodated in the High Court of Telangana. This representation was rejected by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings Roc.NO.71/SO/2020, dated 01.12.2020. A further representation made by the petitioner was also rejected vide proceedings Roc.No.71/SO/2020 dated 06.04.2022. 9. Thereupon, the petitioner and certain others sought to send representations, dated 15.10.2021 and 20.10.2021, to the High Court for the State of Telangana, through the Registrar General of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. However, the Registrar General, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rejected these applications for forwarding the representation of the petitioner and other persons to the High Court for the State of Telangana. 10. The petitioner along with others again moved the High Court for the State of Telangana by way of W.P.No.18817 of 2022. However, the Registrar General, of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rejected these applications for forwarding the representation of the petitioner and other persons to the High Court for the State of Telangana. 10. The petitioner along with others again moved the High Court for the State of Telangana by way of W.P.No.18817 of 2022. However, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in as much as an opinion had been expressed from the bench that the petitioner and others should approach the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as they were working in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This application for withdrawal with leave was granted by order dated 18.04.2022. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking various reliefs set out in the writ petition. The reliefs sought by the petitioner were that – the proceedings of the Registrar (Administration), High Court for the State of Telangana, dated 18.01.2019 reallocating the petitioner to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh; the proceedings of the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 01.03.2019 accepting the reallocation of the petitioner to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh without protecting the seniority; a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be repatriated to the High Court for the State of Telangana in the supernumerary posts created w.e.f., 01.01.2019 vide G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 19.12.2019 and for a further declaration that the petitioner was entitled to be allocated to the High Court for the State of Telangana in terms of the official allocation proceedings of the combined High Court dated 31.12.2018. 12. 12. Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the initial reallocation proceedings dated 18.01.2019 of the High Court for the State of Telangana had not been accepted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and as such the said proceedings of reallocation would be nonest in the eye of law; the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would not have issued proceedings dated 01.03.2019 placing the petitioner at the bottom of the employees who were already allocated to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh after having taken the stand that the proceedings of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 18.01.2019 were issued unilaterally and without approval of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh; the proceedings of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 01.03.2019 are in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not given liberty to object to his seniority being fixed by placing him at the bottom of the list of reallocated employees and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had committed a mistake in accepting the proceedings of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 18.01.2019 when the said decision was taken unilaterally by the High Court for the State of Telangana. 13. Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would contend that the basic complaint of the petitioner is against the official order of reallocation dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court for the State of Telangana and the same requires to be challenged before the High Court for the State of Telangana and cannot be challenged before this Court as the cause of action as well as the proper respondent is situated in the State of Telangana. 14. The prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order of reallocation dated 18.01.2019 issued by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court for the State of Telangana cannot be accepted as the same would have to be raised by way of properly constituted proceedings before the High Court for the State of Telangana and this Court would not have jurisdiction to pass such an order against the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court for the State of Telangana. This is because the order of reallocation was issued in Telangana by the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court for the State of Telangana and affected the petitioner in Telangana. It is clear that the respondent against whom such a relief is sought is in Telangana and the cause of action, namely, the passing of the reallocation order dated 18.01.2019 also occurred in the State of Telangana. 15. The second reason why the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted is the fact that the proceedings of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 18.01.2019 had been placed before the Full Court of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 13.02.2019, wherein the Full Court had opined that a unilateral decision could not have been taken by the High Court for the State of Telangana without the knowledge and consent of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to agitate his rights, in appropriate proceedings, before the appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.