NOC for external employment must be issued unless specific disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending.

The applicant, Dr. Oshin, a Scientist B at the Central Sericultural Research & Training Institute, applied for the posts of Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist at Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences.

She sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from her current employer, the Central Silk Board.

Her initial requests for NOC were rejected on April 24, 2024, and June 25, 2024, citing staff shortage.

Subsequently, the Registrar of Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences communicated interview dates of March 9, 2026, and March 12, 2026, for the respective posts, requiring the production of an NOC.

The applicant again requested an NOC on February 26, 2026, but received no communication regarding its issuance before the scheduled interviews.

She then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking directions for the issuance of the NOC and quashing of the earlier rejection orders.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the applicant for participation in interviews for career progression.

2. Whether the impugned orders dated April 25, 2024, and June 25, 2024, rejecting the NOC request, should be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

The court primarily applied the Office Memorandum dated November 24, 2022, issued by the DoPT, which deals with forwarding applications of government servants for outside employment.

Specifically, it referred to Para 6 of the said Office Memorandum, which stipulates the circumstances under which an application for appointment should *not* be considered or forwarded, including being under suspension, pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings, or undergoing a penalty.

The general guidelines of the Office Memorandum allow withholding an application only if "a particular employee cannot be spared without serious detriment to important work in hand".

The court noted that the applicant's counsel highlighted Para 6 of the Office Memorandum dated November 24, 2022, arguing that the applicant did not fall within any of the stipulated conditions for withholding an application.

The court found that the respondents' counsel could not demonstrate that the applicant fell under the purview of Para 6 or justify withholding the NOC on the ground of staff shortage.

The court observed that the applicant specifically stated that no disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending against her, and this assertion was not controverted by the respondents.

Therefore, based on the clear conditions outlined in Para 6, the court reasoned that if these disqualifying circumstances were absent, the NOC should be issued.

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage.