Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/2172/2026 of COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA TH PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER Vs JAGBIR SINGH on 22 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2172/2026 Caveat No. 1835/2026 Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. ….. Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate. q vs Jagbir Singh .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Manik Dutt, Advocate. CORAM:
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2172/2026
Caveat No. 1835/2026
Comptroller and Auditor General of
India and Anr.
….. Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate.
q
vs
Jagbir Singh
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Manik Dutt, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
22.07.2026
Caveat No. 1835/2026
01. With the appearance of Mr. Manik Dutt, Advocate, caveat stands discharged.
WP(C) No. 2172/2026
02. Heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the matter.
03. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, in OA No. 548/2026, whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for posting at his choice station.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal, at the interlocutory stage, has virtually granted the substantive relief claimed in the Original Application without finally adjudicating the matter and without recording any finding regarding mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of any statutory provision governing the transfer. It was further submitted that transfer is Sr. No. 91
2 WP(C) No. 2172/2026
an incidence of service and the issue of posting falls within the exclusive domain of the employer.
05. Having considered the submissions and perused the impugned order, we find no ground to interfere in exercise of our writ jurisdiction. The Tribunal has merely directed the petitioners to consider the respondent's case in the light of the plea of discrimination raised before it. The impugned order neither quashes the transfer order nor confers any enforceable right upon the respondent to be posted at a station of his choice. No jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity has been demonstrated warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
06. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed along with connected CM(s). It is, however, clarified that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall decide the Original Application on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the impugned order or in this order.
07. No order as to costs.
(Rajesh Sekhri) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Jammu 22.07.2026 Sushant