Right to resign cannot be denied based on staff shortages or operational exigencies.

The applicant was appointed as Trackman IV in the N.F. Railway on December 8, 2023

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

After qualifying the Computer Based Test and completing document verification, the applicant sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his employer on March 23, 2025

The respondents rejected the NOC request via an order dated April 4, 2025, citing operational exigencies and staff shortages

Consequently, the applicant submitted his resignation on May 12 and May 29, 2025, to join the new post, but the respondents refused to accept it

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the NOC rejection and a direction to the respondents to accept his resignation

1. Whether the respondents' rejection of the NOC through a cryptic order was legally sustainable under the principles of natural justice

2. Whether "staff shortage" and "public interest" constitute valid grounds to refuse an employee's resignation under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) and settled law

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefits of "technical resignation" despite applying for the NOC after appearing for the recruitment examination

The court primarily applied Rule 1401 of the IREM Vol. I, which mandates that forwarding applications should be the rule rather than the exception, with "public interest" interpreted strictly

It relied on the principle of natural justice as established in Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, asserting that administrative orders must be supported by reasons

The court further applied the precedent from Sanjay Jain v. National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. (2019) 14 SCC 492, which affirms that resigning is a right of an employee unless specific disciplinary or contractual impediments exist

Additionally, it referenced the DoPT OM dated August 17, 2016, regarding the criteria for "Technical Resignation"

The Tribunal found that the respondents' order dated April 4, 2025, was "cryptic" and lacked valid reasoning, violating the principles of natural justice which require reasons to be the "heartbeat" of any conclusion

Under Rule 1401 of the IREM, the applicant did not meet the restrictive criteria for withholding an application (such as being engaged in time-bound projects or facing disciplinary proceedings)

The Tribunal observed that the Gauhati High Court had previously ruled in WP(C) No. 4425/2025 that staff shortage is not a valid legal ground to withhold an employee's resignation

However, because the applicant failed to prove he applied for the NOC before appearing for the exam, the Tribunal determined that his departure could not be treated as a "technical resignation" under the 2016 DoPT OM, meaning he would not be eligible for the benefit of past service or a lien on his previous post

It directed the respondents to forthwith accept the applicant's resignation submitted in May 2025

The Railway Recruitment Board (Respondent No. 6) was directed to complete the selection process and appoint the applicant as Technician Grade III, provided he is otherwise eligible

The holding clarified that the appointment would be on the basis of ordinary resignation without the benefit of past service or a lien on the post of Trackman IV