Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |    

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