Prior Permission to Apply for Civil Posts is a Mandatory Pre-condition for Discharge of Airmen

In brief

The question

1. Whether the requirements prescribed under AFO No. 33/2017, specifically seeking prior permission before applying for a civil post, are mandatory or merely directory/procedural in nature.

The court held

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's failure to obtain prior permission as mandated by AFO No. 33/2017 justified the refusal of the NOC and discharge

It also directed

The Court affirmed that permission to seek civil employment is a privilege governed by service exigencies and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The orders of the AFT and the Delhi High Court were upheld

01Facts

The appellant, a Corporal (Airman) in the Indian Air Force (IAF), applied for the civil post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in Rajasthan following an advertisement in November 2020

¶ 1

Under Air Force Order (AFO) No. 33/2017, Airmen seeking civil employment must obtain prior permission from competent authorities before applying

¶ 1

The appellant claimed to have attempted an online application for permission on 25.11.2020 and an offline application on 27.11.2020, though no proof of receipt was available

¶ 8

After being selected for the post on 01.10.2022, he applied for a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) and discharge on 03.10.2022, which was denied on 14.10.2022 due to non-compliance with AFO 33/2017

¶ 1-2

Both the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Delhi High Court dismissed his challenges, finding he failed to seek the mandatory prior permission

¶ 2-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the requirements prescribed under AFO No. 33/2017, specifically seeking prior permission before applying for a civil post, are mandatory or merely directory/procedural in nature.

¶ 4, 9

ii.2. Whether an Airman has an unqualified right to leave the service for civil employment upon selection, notwithstanding the failure to comply with internal regulatory orders.

¶ 11

03Law Applied

The Court applied AFO No. 33/2017, which regulates the eligibility and procedure for Airmen to apply for civil posts to balance personal aspirations with the IAF's operational preparedness

¶ 7

It specifically relied on Clause 7 (prior permission as a pre-requisite for NOC), Clause 19 (rejection of NOC for lack of prior permission), and Clause 20 (clarifying that permission and NOC are privileges, not rights)

¶ 7

The Court followed the precedent in Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India and Others (2019 INSC 720), which established that members of a disciplined force do not have an unqualified right under Article 19(1)(g) to depart from service at will and must adhere to the terms of engagement and service orders

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section 14

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that AFO No. 33/2017 is not merely a set of procedural guidelines but a regulatory framework with a specific objective: maintaining the "manning level" and "operational preparedness" of the IAF

¶ 7, 10

Since Clause 19 explicitly stipulates the consequence of non-compliance (rejection of NOC), the requirement for prior permission is mandatory, not directory

¶ 10

The Court found that the appellant failed to produce any evidence—digital or physical—of having sought permission in 2020

¶ 8

It rejected the appellant's argument that selection to a civil post creates a fait accompli that overrides service discipline, noting that allowing such a breach would "impinge upon manning levels" and the interests of the service, which remain paramount

¶ 10-11

05Holding

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's failure to obtain prior permission as mandated by AFO No. 33/2017 justified the refusal of the NOC and discharge

¶ 12

¶ 7, 10, 12

LawLens.Supreme Court

Original Court PDF