In a significant ruling concerning the service conditions of Armed Forces personnel, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has held that obtaining prior permission before applying for a civil post under Air Force Order No. 33/2017 is mandatory for Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel, ruling that non-compliance cannot be waived as a mere procedural formality. Dismissing an appeal by an Airman selected as an Assistant Professor, the Apex Court affirmed that service members do not possess an unqualified right to depart from service at will, and failure to seek prior approval disentitles an applicant from obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Nakhat Singh, served as an Airman holding the rank of Corporal in the Indian Air Force. Having completed the minimum required service of seven years, he desired to transition to a civil post. Air Force Order (AFO) No. 33/2017, issued by the Chief of the Air Staff, regulates this process and requires an Airman to seek prior permission from the competent authority before submitting an application for civilian employment.
In November 2020, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi. The appellant applied for the post, cleared the written examination held in September 2021, and was interviewed in September 2022. On October 1, 2022, he received notification of his final selection. Following his selection, the appellant submitted an application on October 3, 2022, to the competent Air Force authority requesting an NOC and discharge from service to join his civil appointment. However, on October 14, 2022, the Air Officer Commanding declined to recommend his request.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the appellant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), New Delhi, seeking to quash the endorsement denying his candidature. While the AFT noted that possessing Skill Grade ‘C’ instead of ‘A’ could not be a ground for denial—in light of the Delhi High Court judgment in Subhash Chand v. Union of India, which invalidated the Skill Grade ‘A’ requirement—it found that the appellant had failed to obtain prior permission before applying for the post. The AFT concluded that there was no proof of any online or offline application submitted prior to applying for the civil post, justifying the denial under Clauses 9, 11, and 12 of AFO No. 33/2017.
The appellant subsequently challenged the AFT order before the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench affirmed the findings of the AFT, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, appearing for the appellant, argued that having successfully secured selection as an Assistant Professor, the appellant should not be deprived of career advancement due to non-compliance with mere procedural formalities. He contended that the provisions of AFO No. 33/2017 outline the manner of seeking permission rather than governing substantive rights. Since these requirements were procedural in nature, they were directory and could be waived in the interest of justice. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CPL N.K. Jakhar v. Union of India and Sonu v. Union of India.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General of India Archana Pathak Dave, representing the respondents, supported the judgments of the AFT and the High Court. She submitted that the primary objective of framing AFO No. 33/2017 was to balance the personal aspirations of Airmen with the operational preparedness and manning levels of the IAF. She pointed out that Clause 20 of the AFO explicitly clarifies that seeking permission and receiving an NOC are privileges rather than enforceable legal rights. Given the concurrent factual findings that the appellant had failed to demonstrate submission of any prior application or request, the refusal to grant an NOC was lawful and unassailable.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, examined the framework of AFO No. 33/2017 and rejected the argument that its mandatory stipulations were merely directory procedures.
The Bench observed that premature discharge affects manning levels in various trades within the IAF, directly impacting operational readiness. To reconcile organizational necessity with individual career ambitions, AFO No. 33/2017 establishes a two-stage permission structure: first, obtaining approval prior to applying for a civil post, and second, applying for an NOC upon being called for an interview or after written results are declared.
Addressing the nature of the rules under AFO No. 33/2017, the Court observed:
“In our view, on a complete reading of AFO No.33/2017, it cannot be said that the requirements prescribed are merely procedural in nature and, thus, their compliance is not mandatory. The object behind stipulating these requirements has necessary nexus with the object of regulating premature discharge of air warriors from the IAF.”
The Court emphasized the disciplinary standards required in the armed forces, noting:
“The prescription of seeking prior permission before making an attempt to apply for a civil post and the subsequent grant of NOC by the competent authority after such selection cannot stated to be simple procedural requirements that could be dispensed with at the will of the concerned Airman.”
The Bench highlighted that Clause 19 of AFO No. 33/2017 explicitly mandates the rejection of an NOC if prior permission was not obtained. Clarifying the legal principle regarding pre-requisites accompanied by explicit consequences, the Court held:
“It is well settled that if the consequence of failure to comply with a prescribed pre-requisite is stipulated in the relevant provision or clause requiring such compliance, fulfilment of such pre-requisite shall be treated as mandatory. By skipping the first requirement of seeking prior permission to apply for a civil post, an Airman cannot present a situation of fait accompli and seek grant of NOC by contending that he having been selected to a civil post, the requirement of seeking prior permission be completely waived.”
On the question of whether an enrolled member of the armed forces holds an absolute right to resign or depart from service, the Apex Court referred to its earlier precedent in Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India, reiterating:
“A person enrolled as a member of the Air Force does not have an unqualified right to depart from service at his or her will during the term of engagement. Such a construction, as urged on behalf of the appellant, will seriously impinge upon manning levels and operational preparedness of the armed forces.”
“The interests of the service are of paramount importance. A balance has been sought to be drawn between the interests of the service with situations involving requests by persons enrolled to take civilian employment. This balance is reflected in the provisions contained in the Air Force orders, in this case AFO 14/2008. A person enrolled cannot assert a general right to act in breach or defiance of those orders.”
Decision
Finding no fault in the factual conclusions reached by the AFT and affirmed by the Delhi High Court regarding the lack of prior permission, the Supreme Court held that the cases relied upon by the appellant were distinguishable on facts. Consequently, the Apex Court dismissed the civil appeal, ordering parties to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Nakhat Singh v. Union of India and Others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 9050 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: July 29, 2026
