Failure to submit the mandatory employer NOC within the undertaking period justifies cancellation of candidature.

The Airports Authority of India (“AAI”) issued an advertisement dated 04.04.2025 for 309 posts of Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control), requiring candidates employed by a government department, autonomous body, or public-sector undertaking to produce a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) from their current employer at the stage of Application Verification.

The Appellant appeared in the Computer Based Test on 14.07.2025 and thereafter joined as a Technician (Trainee) under the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, with effect from 20.08.2025.

After being provisionally shortlisted, the Appellant appeared for Application Verification on 18.02.2026 and undertook to submit the NOC within seven days, failing which his candidature would be cancelled.

Although he had requested the NOC from the Railway authorities on 10.12.2025 and again on 23.02.2026, the NOC was not issued. He informed AAI of the difficulty and sought an extension, but AAI cancelled his candidature on 06.04.2026.

The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition and upheld the cancellation. The Appellant challenged that decision in the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the requirement to produce an NOC applied to the Appellant, who joined the Railway service after appearing in the written examination but was employed on the date of Application Verification?

Whether AAI’s cancellation of the Appellant’s candidature for failure to submit the NOC within seven days, in accordance with his undertaking, was illegal, arbitrary, or perverse?

Whether the Appellant’s bona fide efforts to obtain the NOC and his requests for extension required AAI to overlook or extend the stipulated deadline?

The Court applied the principle that recruitment to public posts is governed by the conditions stipulated in the recruitment advertisement, which must ordinarily be applied uniformly to all candidates.

An eligibility requirement relating to an NOC is assessed at the stage expressly specified in the advertisement—in this case, Application Verification—and not necessarily on the date of the written examination.

The Court further applied the principle that a candidate who voluntarily furnishes an undertaking with knowledge of its terms and consequences is bound by it; failure to satisfy the undertaking may justify cancellation of candidature.

Judicial review is warranted only where the recruiting authority’s decision is illegal, arbitrary, or perverse; the Court will not ordinarily direct relaxation of an essential recruitment condition for an individual candidate.

The Court held that the relevant date for compliance with the NOC requirement was 18.02.2026, the date of Application Verification, because the advertisement expressly required production of the NOC at that stage.

The Appellant admittedly held employment or engagement with the Railway authorities on that date, as demonstrated by his own requests for issuance of an NOC. His prior appearance in the examination before joining the Railway service did not exempt him from the requirement.

The Court also rejected the argument that he was merely undergoing training and was not employed, observing that he himself treated the engagement as employment for purposes of seeking the NOC.

Although the Appellant had made bona fide efforts to obtain the NOC and had informed AAI of the difficulty, those efforts did not amount to actual compliance with the undertaking.

AAI had no control over the Railway authorities and was not required to keep the recruitment process for 309 posts pending indefinitely.

Since the Appellant failed to submit the NOC within the expressly stipulated seven-day period, AAI was entitled to enforce the consequence to which he had agreed. The subsequent declaration of final results, joining of selected candidates, and commencement of training also weighed against granting relief.

His failure to submit the NOC within seven days, despite the undertaking, validly justified cancellation of his candidature. The Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity in AAI’s decision or in the order of the learned Single Judge.

The appeal was dismissed, the pending application was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.