Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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.     

 

Similar News