While upholding the refusal to grant an Airman NOC and consequent discharge from the IAF in view of his appointment on a civil post, the Supreme Court has held that the prescription of seeking prior permission before attempting to apply for a civil post and the subsequent grant of NOC by the competent authority after such selection cannot stated to be simple procedural requirements that could be dispensed with at the will of the concerned Airman.

The Apex Court was of the view that by skipping the first requirement of seeking prior permission to apply for a civil post, an Airman cannot seek grant of NOC.

The Division Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar noted, “We, thus, find that the appellant has not been able to produce any material whatsoever to enable this Court to take a different view of the matter. In absence of any documentary material placed on record, the factual findings recorded by the AFT and affirmed by the High Court that there was no material to hold that the appellant had in fact submitted his online application on 25.11.2020 or his offline application on 27.11.2020, do not call for any interference. It is, thus, clear that the appellant failed to obtain prior permission before applying for the civil post.”

“It must be borne in mind that Airmen are members of the IAF, a disciplined force. The prescription of seeking prior permission before making an attempt to apply for a civil post and the subsequent grant of NOC by the competent authority after such selection cannot stated to be simple procedural requirements that could be dispensed with at the will of the concerned Airman. The consequence of failure to obtain prior permission before applying for a civil post has been provided in Clause 19 of AFO No.33/2017 inasmuch as it prescribes for rejection of a request for issuance of NOC if no prior permission has been sought. It is well settled that if the consequence of failure to comply with a prescribed pre-requisite is stipulated in the relevant provision or clause requiring such compliance, fulfilment of such pre-requisite shall be treated as mandatory”, it added.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar represented the Appellant while Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant, an Airman holding the post of Corporal, on completion of minimum service of seven years, desired to serve on a civil post. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in November 2020 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Hindi. The appellant, on being successful, was called for interview. He was informed of his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Thereafter, the appellant made an application to the competent authority seeking grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ and discharge to enable him to join in the post of Assistant Professor. The Air Officer Commanding did not recommend the appellant’s application.

The appellant, being aggrieved, filed an Original Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi. He sought quashing of the remarks endorsed on his request letter by the concerned Authority not recommending his candidature. A reply was filed by the respondents stating that as the appellant failed to comply with the requirements prescribed under the AFO, his candidature was not recommended. The AFT held that though the appellant had secured Skill Grade ‘C’ while the requirement under Clause 6 of the AFO was possessing Skill Grade ‘A’, the same could not be a ground to deny the appellant a ‘NOC’. The AFT, however, found that the appellant failed to seek prior permission of the competent authority while applying for the concerned civil post. The Original Application was, accordingly, dismissed. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the findings recorded by the AFT and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench held that the appellant, having failed to act in accordance with the AFO, the refusal to grant him NOC and consequent discharge from the IAF in view of his appointment on a civil post did not call for any interference.

The Bench explained that the AFO was issued by the Chief of the Air Staff. The Bench found that the Airmen with Skill Grade ‘B’ and ‘C’ were also considered eligible subject to a minimum service of seven years. On a perusal of the facts, the Bench noted that the appellant could not submit any proof of submission of his online application as well as the offline application, and the appellant’s request letter did not refer to his offline application stated to be made on November 27, 2020. The Bench thus concluded that the appellant failed to obtain prior permission before applying for the civil post.

Referring to the AFO, the Bench held, “The same does not prevent an Airman from seeking betterment of his career prospects. It merely prescribes the manner in which such exercise is required to be undertaken. It contemplates seeking permission at two stages. The first stage is before applying for a civil post and the second stage is after receiving a call letter for appearing in the interview or after the result of the written test is declared, where selection is based on success in the written test only. Under Clause 7 of the AFO, permission to apply for a civil post is a pre-requisite for grant of NOC by the competent authority. It has been clarified in the AFO itself that grant of permission to apply for a civil post as well as subsequent grant of NOC are privileges and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”

Thus, affirming the order of the AFT and the High Court, the Bench dismissed the Civil Appeal.

Cause Title: Nakhat Singh v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 758)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, Advocates Pallavi Awasthi, AOR Deepak Goel, Advocates Vaibhavi Mittal, Shubham Singh, Alka Goyal

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, Advocates Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Sarthak Karol, Sweksha, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR S.N. Terdal

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: