Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

No NOC for IAF Corporal Seeking Civilian Post Without Proper Procedure: High Court Upholds Armed Forces Tribunal's Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal's (AFT) decision, dismissing an appeal by an Indian Air Force (IAF) Corporal seeking a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge to join a civilian post as Assistant Professor in the Rajasthan Government. The Court's decision, delivered on January 23, 2024, emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when seeking employment outside the armed forces.

The Corporal had challenged the AFT's order on the grounds that his attempts to apply online for the civilian post were thwarted due to the non-acceptance of his application by the software. Additionally, his effort to submit an offline application was also rejected, leading him to participate in the selection process without formal permission from the authorities.

The High Court, in its judgment, noted, "There is a finding of fact by AFT... that the petitioner has not placed any proof of submission of online application and its non-acceptance by the respondents." The Court found no evidence to support the Corporal's claims of attempting both online and offline applications, thus upholding the AFT's decision.

The Court's judgment also highlighted, "The petitioner has neither submitted the online application nor an offline application was submitted by the petitioner seeking permission of the respondents to take up the civil post." This observation was crucial in dismissing the Corporal's petition for lack of merit.

Responding to the Corporal's challenge to the constitutional validity of Air Force Order 33/2017, which he claimed imposed unreasonable conditions on airmen seeking civilian employment, the Court found the petitioner's arguments to be contradictory. The judgment read, "The petitioner cannot challenge the vires of the same AFO, under which he has sought to submit the online application."

The decision underscores the imperative for armed forces personnel to follow established protocols when applying for civilian positions. The High Court's dismissal of the petition reaffirms the importance of procedural compliance in such transitions, emphasizing the operational impact and investment in training within the armed forces.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2024

NAKHAT SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.     

 

Latest Legal News