Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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