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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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