Sr. No.27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1969/2025 CM No. 5219/2025 Gulshan Younis …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, Sr. AAG with Mr. Waseem Gull, GA Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 14-08-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar, having found a prima facie case, vide impugned order dated August, 13, 2025, issued notice and also restrained the respondents authorities not to disturb the petitioner from her present place of posting if not already relieved: “In the meantime, subject to the objections of the other side and till next date of hearing, the respondents are directed not to disturb the applicant from her present place of posting, if not already relieved. List the matter on 07.10.2025.” However, he submits that the order of transfer dated August, 07, 2025, itself records that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been relieved: “The detailed to work Medical Officers shall be deemed to have been relieved and shall join SDH Tangdar forthwith and without fail.” Despite the order dated August, 13, 2025 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is not being permitted to work at SDH, Kupwara. Served with an advance copy of the petition, Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, learned Sr. AAG, is present on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, he submits that since the OA preferred by the petitioner is primarily centered upon the specific allegations and mala-fides are alleged, the persons concerned not being arrayed as party to the proceedings, the application moved by the petitioner ought to have been dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. At any rate, he asserts that the transfer of the petitioner was purely on account of administrative exigencies/grounds. And even otherwise, she had been posted at Kupwara for the past 06 years. He submits that transfer is an incidence of service. Thus the scope of interference is minimal. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the petition so as to enable the petitioner to move an appropriate application, if so advised, before the Tribunal itself as regards her concerns and grievances. Dismissed as withdrawn. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE SRINAGAR 14-08-2025 Aadil