Unchallenged candidature cancellation and absence of vacancy preclude belated relief despite subsequent NOC issuance.

The petitioner, a Sergeant in the Indian Air Force, sought an No Objection Certificate (NOC) to participate in the Bihar Public Service Commission’s selection process for appointment as a Revenue Officer.

His applications were not recommended or were rejected by the Indian Air Force on 7 September 2021, 22 October 2021, 8 November 2021 and 22 December 2021, allegedly under the applicable Air Force policy.

The Indian Air Force subsequently issued him a blanket NOC on 7 October 2024, approximately one year before his superannuation on 30 September 2025.

Meanwhile, the Bihar authorities informed him by Departmental Order dated 6 January 2023 that his candidature had been cancelled for failure to produce the NOC within the stipulated period.

The petitioner did not challenge that cancellation order.

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on the constitutional guarantees under Articles 15 and 16 concerning equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

It applied the principle that extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily will not be exercised where the material adverse order has not been challenged, where the claimed relief has become ineffective or academic, and where no subsisting vacancy or enforceable right remains.

The Court also considered the applicable selection-rule principle that the recommended panel remained valid for one year, as asserted by the State authorities.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim could not effectively be adjudicated because the Bihar authorities’ decision cancelling his candidature on 6 January 2023 had not been challenged.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had subsequently received a blanket NOC on 7 October 2024, thereby substantially addressing the grievance against the Indian Air Force.

Since he had superannuated on 30 September 2025, all seats from the relevant selection had been filled, and subsequent selection processes had been conducted, there was no existing vacancy or practical relief that could be granted.

In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, particularly because the petitioner’s asserted right to appointment had become ineffective and the relevant cancellation order remained unassailed.

It held that the petitioner could not obtain relief against the Indian Air Force or claim appointment as Revenue Officer because he had not challenged the cancellation of his candidature, had subsequently received a blanket NOC, had superannuated, and no vacancy remained in the concerned selection process.

The pending application was also disposed of.