Resignation is a right of an employee and cannot be withheld on grounds of staff shortage or operational exigencies.

The applicant was appointed as a Trackman IV (Level 1) in the Western Railway on July 5, 2023, and later transferred to the Lumding Division of N.F. Railway on February 14, 2025

While in service, he applied for the post of Technician Grade III (Level 2) under Central Employment Notice (CEN) No. 02/2024 issued by RRB Bilaspur

After qualifying for the post, he was required to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by June 25, 2025

He applied for the NOC on April 19, 2025, but the respondents failed to act on it

Consequently, he submitted his resignation on May 7, 2025

The respondents rejected his resignation via a cryptic order dated May 15, 2025, citing "operational exigencies" and "acute staff shortage"

The applicant challenged this rejection, seeking a direction for the acceptance of his resignation and the issuance of an NOC or appointment to the higher post

Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant's resignation via a cryptic and unreasoned order is legally sustainable

Whether "operational exigency" or "staff shortage" constitutes a valid ground for withholding a resignation under the existing service rules

Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of "technical resignation" despite failing to obtain an NOC prior to appearing for the examination

Paragraph 1401 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) Vol. I, which mandates that the term "public interest" for withholding applications must be interpreted strictly and applied objectively, with relief being the rule rather than the exception

Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. (2019) 14 SCC 492, which establishes that resigning is a right of an employee that cannot be denied unless disciplinary proceedings are pending or specific rules stipulate otherwise

The principle of natural justice regarding reasoned orders as articulated in Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity (2010)

DoPT OM dated 17.08.2016, which clarifies that resignation without a prior NOC through the proper channel cannot be treated as a "technical resignation"

The Tribunal found that the impugned order rejecting the resignation was "cryptic" and lacked valid reasoning, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

Examining Paragraph 1401 of the IREM, the court noted that the applicant did not fall under any of the three prohibitive categories (involvement in time-bound projects, pending disciplinary proceedings, or applying for an equivalent post)

While the respondents cited staff shortage, the Tribunal followed the precedent of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 4425/2025, holding that staff shortage is not a valid ground to force an employee to serve against their will

Regarding the nature of the resignation, the court observed that since the applicant appeared for the examination without a prior NOC, he was not entitled to "technical resignation" status or the benefit of past service under the 2016 DoPT OM

The court emphasized that the right to resign is fundamental unless specific legal impediments exist

It directed the respondents to forthwith accept the applicant’s resignation submitted on May 7, 2025

It directed the Railway Recruitment Board, Bilaspur, to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III under CEN No. 02/2024, provided he is otherwise eligible

The court held that while the resignation must be accepted, it will not be treated as a technical resignation, and the applicant will not be entitled to the benefit of past service

No order as to costs was made