Mere staff shortage cannot justify refusing an employee’s NOC for outside employment.

The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant (T-3) in the Directorate of Research, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, by Office Order No. 195 dated 17.11.2025 and joined on 18.11.2025.

While serving, she applied for the post of Flying Officer in the Indian Air Force, qualified in the written examination, and was called for an interview scheduled on 03.08.2026.

She applied to the University on 29.05.2026 for ex-post facto permission and a No Objection Certificate (NOC), disclosing the relevant facts and the requirement of an NOC for the interview.

The Deputy Registrar rejected her request by Letter No. 170 dated 30.05.2026, principally on the ground of shortage of employees and the requirement that applications for outside employment be made with prior permission.

The petitioner challenged the rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that it unjustifiably restricted her career opportunity and violated Articles 14 and 16.

1. Whether the University’s refusal to issue an NOC to enable the petitioner to appear for the Indian Air Force interview, based primarily on staff shortage and absence of prior permission, was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Whether Clause 22(iv) of the University’s Service and Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees), 2017, completely barred the petitioner from seeking forwarding of an application for outside employment during her service or probationary period.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to issuance of an NOC subject to an undertaking to resign from the University if selected for the Indian Air Force.

The Court held that issuance of an NOC is not an absolute right and must ordinarily be governed by the applicable service conditions; however, refusal may be judicially reviewed where it is arbitrary and unsupported by legitimate administrative grounds, such as pending disciplinary proceedings, critical staff shortage, or an active service bond.

The Court relied on the constitutional principles embodied in Articles 14 and 16, observing that an employee cannot be effectively restrained from pursuing career advancement or outside employment through unjustified administrative action.

The Court considered the Government Servants’ Applications for Posts (Central Services) Rules, 1943, referred to in Office Memorandum No. 170/51 dated 21.08.1952, which required prior permission for a government servant applying for Central Government employment.

However, it held that the University’s specific Service and Recruitment Rules (Non-Teaching Employees), 2017, governed the petitioner’s service conditions.

Clause 22(iv) of those Rules did not impose an absolute prohibition; it permitted consideration of an application for outside employment at the competent authority’s discretion upon submission of an undertaking to resign if selected, and was primarily directed to temporary employees during probation.

The Court distinguished between the existence of a regulatory requirement for an NOC and an arbitrary refusal to grant one.

Although the University could regulate applications for outside employment, its reliance on general staff shortage was insufficient because the petitioner had no role in preventing the University from filling the vacant post, and the institutional consequences of its own recruitment decisions could not be imposed on her to deprive her of a career opportunity.

The Court further found that the 1952 Office Memorandum could not override the University’s specific 2017 Rules governing non-teaching employees.

On a plain reading of Clause 22(iv), the Rules allowed consideration of the request subject to an undertaking, rather than creating an absolute embargo.

Moreover, the petitioner had been appointed on a regular basis and was not shown to be a temporary employee to whom the probationary restriction primarily applied.

Consequently, the rejection imposed an unjustified and disproportionate restraint on her ability to pursue alternative employment and failed the tests of Articles 14 and 16.

The Registrar of the University was directed to issue the NOC by 31.07.2026, subject to the petitioner’s undertaking that she would resign from her University post if selected for the Indian Air Force, enabling her to appear in the interview scheduled for 03.08.2026.