Contractual jurisdiction clauses cannot override CAT filing rights based on an applicant’s current posting.

The respondent was permitted by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), by order dated 21 July 2026, to participate provisionally in the 93rd Station Officers and Instructor Course, subject to the outcome of his original application (OA).

The Director, National Fire Service College, Nagpur, applied to vacate that order; the CAT dismissed the application on 16 September 2026.

The Union of India challenged the CAT’s decision, arguing that the OA should have been brought in Nagpur under the application form’s jurisdiction clause and that provisional participation could create an irreversible situation.

Whether the application form’s clause confining disputes to courts in Nagpur deprived the CAT at Delhi of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s OA.

Whether permitting the respondent to participate provisionally in the course could create an irreversible situation warranting interference with the CAT’s order.

Rule 6(1)(i) of the Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 provides that an OA may ordinarily be filed before the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted; Rule 6(1)(ii) also permits filing where the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part.

A contractual or application-form jurisdiction clause cannot displace that statutory filing right; the clause here concerned disputes arising out of the application form and did not govern this CAT proceeding.

Courts may permit provisional participation in courses or examinations, subject to the outcome of the litigation, to avoid a fait accompli while preserving the parties’ positions.

The Court held that the Nagpur clause concerned disputes arising from the application form and was not intended to govern this CAT dispute; moreover, no CAT Bench could entertain the matter at Nagpur under that clause.

The respondent was posted in Delhi, so Rule 6(1)(i) supported filing the OA there.

As to provisional participation, the Court reasoned that it was expressly subject to the OA’s outcome and would confer no benefit if the respondent ultimately failed; such orders prevent a candidate from being deprived of meaningful relief merely because the course has concluded during litigation.

Finding no cause to entertain the writ petition, it dismissed the petition in limine.