Failure to release an employee despite No Objection Certificate for new appointment constitutes an arbitrary exercise of administrative power.

The petitioner, Dr. Somnath Pal, sought a writ to compel the respondent authorities, specifically the Director of Health Services (Respondent No. 2), to accept his resignation dated May 6, 2026

The petitioner had previously obtained a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) from the respondent authorities on December 31, 2025, to participate in the selection process for the post of Additional Professor of Neonatology at AIIMS, Kalyani

Following a successful interview, he received an appointment letter on May 4, 2026, with a mandate to join by June 3, 2026

Despite the petitioner immediately submitting his resignation to facilitate this transition, the respondent authorities failed to act upon it

The State requested more time to obtain instructions, citing a lack of communication from the relevant departments

1. Whether the respondent authorities' failure to accept the resignation and release the petitioner, after having issued an NOC for the recruitment process, constitutes an arbitrary delay that prejudices the petitioner's right to employment

2. Whether the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct a time-bound release of the petitioner to meet a joining deadline at a central institution

The Court applied the principle of administrative fairness and the doctrine against "inordinate, unexplained delay" in government decision-making, particularly when such inaction causes "immense prejudice" to an employee's career progression

The court’s reasoning indicates that once an employer issues a "No Objection Certificate" through a "proper channel," they are effectively estopped from withholding resignation without valid cause when the employee is subsequently selected for the post

The Court observed that the petitioner followed all requisite protocols by applying through the proper channel and securing an NOC

The record established a clear timeline: the appointment offer was issued on May 4, the resignation was tendered on May 6, and the joining deadline was June 3

The Court scrutinized the respondents' inaction, describing it as an "eternal slumber" and "inordinate, unexplained delay"

It reasoned that since the petitioner was selected for a higher-tier post (Additional Professor) at a prestigious institution (AIIMS), the State’s failure to process his release would cause irreparable harm to his professional opportunities.

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to release the petitioner positively on or before June 1, 2026

It further ordered that if the respondent failed to act by this date, the petitioner would be "deemed" released by operation of law

The timeline was declared "peremptory and mandatory," and the State was directed to act on the basis of the server copy of the order

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions