Nakhat Singh vs Union Of India
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 758
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9050 OF 2026
NAKHAT SINGH APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J
1. The appellant, an Airman holding the post of Corporal, on
completion of minimum service of seven years desired to serve on
a civil post. For this purpose, he was required to seek permission
of the competent Air Force Authority as provided under Air Force
1
Order No.33/2017 . As per the said AFO, such permission was
required to be sought prior to making an application for
appointment on a civil post. The AFO also provided for various
modalities to be complied with while seeking such permission.
Pursuant to an advertisement issued in November 2020 by the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the appellant applied for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
IRAMNAZ
Date: 2026.07.29
16:42:47 IST
Reason:
1
For Short, ‘AFO’
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 1 of 13
the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Hindi. Written
examination for the said post was held on 22/23.09.2021. The
results of the said examination were declared on 13.04.2022 and
the appellant on being successful was called for interview on
27.09.2022. On 01.10.2022, the appellant was informed of his
selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Thereafter,
on 03.10.2022, the appellant made an application to the
2
competent authority seeking grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’
and discharge to enable him to join on the post of Assistant
Professor. The Air Officer Commanding on 14.10.2022, however,
did not recommend the appellant’s application.
2. The appellant being aggrieved filed an Original Application
under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before
3
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. Reply was filed by the
respondents stating therein that as the appellant failed to comply
with the requirements prescribed under the AFO, his candidature
was not recommended. The AFT by its order dated 06.12.2023 held
2
For short, ‘NOC’
3
For Short, ‘the AFT’
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 2 of 13
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’.
This was in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in
4
Subhash Chand Vs. Union of India and others whereby the
requirement of possession of Skill Grade ‘A’ had been held to be
ultra vires . The AFT, however, found that the appellant failed to
seek prior permission of the competent authority while applying
for the concerned civil post. There was no material on record to
indicate online submission of any application nor were the
requirements of Clause 11 of the AFO satisfied. In view of Clauses
9, 11 and 12 of the AFO, the AFT held that the appellant was
rightly denied the grant of NOC by the Air Officer Commanding.
The Original Application was, accordingly, dismissed.
3. The appellant, being aggrieved, approached the Delhi High
5
Court and raised a challenge to the order of the AFT. After due
consideration, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the
appellant had failed to obtain any prior permission as required by
Clause 9 of the AFO. There was no evidence on record to indicate
4
W.P.(C) No.634 of 2020 decided on 11.03.2020
5
For short, ‘the High Court’
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 3 of 13
submission of a proper online application or even an offline
application. It, therefore, affirmed the findings recorded by the AFT
and dismissed the writ petition.
Being aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal.
4. Mr. Arvind Nayar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant
while reiterating the submissions canvassed before the AFT as well
as the High Court submitted that the appellant having been
selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, he
ought not to be deprived of such opportunity for not complying
with mere procedural requirements. Referring to various clauses
of the AFO, it was submitted that the same merely indicated the
manner in which an Airman was required to seek prior permission
of the competent authority while seeking appointment on a civil
post. The same did not govern the substantive rights of the
appellant. Only on the ground that the appellant had not sought
prior permission of the competent authority, he could not be
deprived of the opportunity to serve on a civil post. The
requirements prescribed by the AFO being procedural in nature
were, thus, directory. The same could, therefore, be waived in the
interests of justice. Reference was made to the judgments of the
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 4 of 13
6
High Court in CPL N.K. Jakhar Vs. Union of India and others
7
and Sonu Vs. Union of India and others . It was, thus, submitted
that the AFT and the High Court having failed to meaningfully
consider the case of the appellant, great prejudice had been caused
to him. It was, thus, urged that the impugned endorsement dated
14.10.2022 not recommending the appellant’s candidature be set
8
aside and the appellant be discharged from the Indian Air Force
to enable him to serve on the civil post on which he was selected.
5. Per contra, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India supported the impugned judgment.
According to her, the procedure prescribed by the AFO not having
been complied with by the appellant, he was rightly denied relief
by the AFT as well as by the High Court. The object behind framing
the AFO was to streamline the manner in which an Airman should
seek prior permission while seeking appointment on a civil post.
There was no restriction whatsoever placed on undertaking such
an attempt, subject to complying with requirements of the AFO. It
was submitted that seeking such permission followed by grant of
NOC were privileges as clarified in Clause 20 of the AFO and,
6
W.P.(C) No.9088 of 2008 decided on 21.10.2009
7
W.P.(C) No.3311 of 2020 decided on 05.08.2020
8
For short, ‘the IAF’
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 5 of 13
therefore, the same could not be claimed as a matter of right.
Subject to complying with the requirements prescribed, an Airman
could seek discharge from the IAF. The AFT having recorded a
finding that the appellant had not sought prior permission before
seeking appointment on a civil post, which finding of fact had been
affirmed by the High Court, there was no scope whatsoever for
interfering with the discretion that was rightly exercised. In
absence of any material whatsoever being produced by the
appellant to indicate that he had even attempted to seek prior
online permission of the competent authority, the refusal to grant
NOC could not be faulted. In absence of any legal right whatsoever
and in view of the findings of fact as recorded, there was no merit
in the appeal. It was, thus, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the entire material on record, we are satisfied 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 does not call for any
interference.
7. AFO No.33/2017 has been issued by the Chief of the Air Staff.
It states that enrolment of Airmen in the IAF is for an initial term
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 6 of 13
of regular engagement for twenty years while some enrolments
serve till the superannuation age of fifty-seven years. Discharge of
Airmen pre-maturely from the IAF prior to completion of their
regular engagement was found to affect the manning level in
respective trades of the IAF and, thus, had an adverse impact on
its operational preparedness. Thus, with a view to achieve its
organisational aim and so as to balance the personal aspirations
of air warriors from the IAF for better career prospects in civil life,
AFO No.33/2017 was framed. It prescribes the eligibility criteria to
enable Airmen to apply for a civil post after obtaining prior
permission from the competent authority. Minimum service of
seven years by an Airman is prescribed along with possessing Skill
Grade ‘A’. Be it noted that prescription of minimum Skill Grade ‘A’
has been held to be ultra vires by the High Court in Subhash Chand
(supra) . Thus, Airmen with Skill Grade ‘B’ and ‘C’ are also
considered eligible subject to minimum service of seven years.
Clause 9 prescribes the manner in which online registration is
required to be made while Clauses 11 and 12 prescribe submission
of requisite documents to enable consideration of grant of such
permission. Clause 19 specifically states that grant of permission
to apply for a civil post should not be construed as grant of ‘NOC’
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 7 of 13
which was to be subsequently issued by the competent authority.
A request for NOC was liable to be rejected in case the individual
had not obtained prior permission of his superior before applying
for a civil post. Clause 20 clarifies that permission to apply for a
civil post and a subsequent grant of NOC are privileges and they
cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
It may be stated that none of the clauses of AFO No.33/2017
are under challenge at the instance of the appellant.
8. Undisputedly, the appellant possesses Skill Grade ‘C’. The
first application stated to be made by the appellant was on
25.11.2020. It is his case that since the said online application
could not be accepted by the concerned website, he made an offline
application on 27.11.2020. The AFT has recorded a finding in
paragraphs 18 to 20 of its order that the appellant could not
submit any proof of submission of his online application dated
25.11.2020 as well as the offline application dated 27.11.2020. It
further found that no grievance with regard to his inability to
submit the online application was made by the appellant. As
regards the offline application dated 27.11.2020 is concerned, the
appellant could not produce any acknowledgement of the same
having been submitted and accepted by the concerned authority.
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 8 of 13
Moreover, the appellant’s request letter dated 03.10.2022 does not
refer to his offline application stated to be made on 27.11.2020.
For all these reasons, the AFT held that the appellant was unable
to show that he had indeed sought prior permission to apply for a
civil post. The relevant material was then examined by the High
Court, which proceeded to accept the same in paragraphs 30 to 34
of its judgment.
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.
9. Coming to the contention that the requirements prescribed
under the AFO being procedural in nature, its compliance could
be waived so as not to defeat the substantive rights of the
appellant, it may be stated that the said contention does not
deserve acceptance. A perusal of AFO No.33/2017 in its entirety
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 9 of 13
indicates that there is an object behind its issuance inasmuch as
premature discharge of an Airman from the IAF prior to completion
of his regular engagement was found to have an adverse impact on
the operational preparedness of the Force. With a view to balance
the personal aspirations of Airmen for better career prospects and
also to regulate the manner in which an air warrior from the IAF
could be discharged, AFO No.33/2017 was framed. As noted
above, the said AFO is not under challenge. 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 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.
10. In our view, on a complete reading of AFO No.33/2017, it
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 10 of 13
cannot be said that the requirements prescribed are merely
procedural in nature and, thus, their compliance is not
mandatory. The object behind stipulating these requirements has
necessary nexus with the object of regulating premature discharge
of air warriors from the IAF. 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. By skipping
the first requirement of seeking prior permission to apply for a civil
post, an Airman cannot present a situation of fait accompli and
seek grant of NOC by contending that he having been selected to a
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 11 of 13
civil post, the requirement of seeking prior permission be
completely waived.
11. On the issue, whether a member of the Air Force has an
unqualified right to depart from service at his will, we may refer to
the decision of this Court in Amit Kumar Roy Vs. Union of India
9
and others . Herein, an Airman in the IAF responded to an
advertisement issued by the Bank of India that intended to fill in
various posts of Probationary Officers. The said Airman had not
completed the mandatory period of service of seven years nor had
he obtained prior permission of his unit authorities as required by
Air Force Order No.14/2008. Considering these aspects, this Court
held as under :
“14. In the present case, the appellant in breach of the provisions
contained in AFO 14/2008 applied for the post of a Probationary Officer with
the Bank of India, participated in the written test and appeared at the
interview without intimation or approval. There was, therefore, a failure of
the appellant to comply with his obligations both in terms of his engagement
as an enrolled member of the force and in relation to the requirements which
were to be fulfilled under the terms of AFO 14/2008.
15. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr Sankaranarayanan that
the appellant had an unqualified right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution to leave the service of the Air Force. The provisions of the Air
Force Act, those contained in the rules and the terms of engagement of the
appellant belie such an assertion. AFO 14/2008 emphasises aspects such
as the criticality of the trade and the exigencies of service. They need to be
verified and assessed before permission is granted. A person who has been
enrolled as a member of the Air Force does not have an unqualified right to
depart from service at his or her will during the term of engagement. Such
a construction, as urged on behalf of the appellant, will seriously impinge
upon manning levels and operational preparedness of the armed forces.
9
2019 INSC 720
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 12 of 13
With the rapid advancement of technology, particularly in its application to
military operations, there has been a reconfiguration of the human and
technological requirements of a fighting force. The interests of the service
are of paramount importance. A balance has been sought to be drawn
between the interests of the service with situations involving requests by
persons enrolled to take civilian employment. This balance is reflected in the
provisions contained in the Air Force orders, in this case AFO 14/2008. A
person enrolled cannot assert a general right to act in breach or defiance of
those orders.”
In this view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by the
learned Senior Advocate for the appellant are clearly
distinguishable on facts and do not assist the appellant.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any case made out
for us to take a different view from the one taken by the AFT and
upheld by the High Court. Consequently, the Civil Appeal is
dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
…...………………………..J.
[ UJJAL BHUYAN ]
.…..………………………..J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI,
JULY 29, 2026.
Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2026 Page 13 of 13