No Prior IAF Permission, No NOC: Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Civil Job Opportunity to Airman

The Supreme Court has held that an Airman who applies for a civil post without first obtaining the mandatory permission required under the Air Force Order cannot later seek a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on the ground that he has already been selected for the post.

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar said the requirements prescribed under departmental orders for armed forces personnel to seek prior permission before applying for outside employment are mandatory and cannot be treated as mere procedural requirements.

Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Nakhat Singh, an Airman holding the rank of Corporal, who had qualified for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).

Why was the Airman denied an NOC?

The Supreme Court held that Singh had failed to obtain prior permission before applying for the civil post, as required under Air Force Order (AFO) No. 33/2017.

Singh had completed the minimum service of seven years and wanted to take up a civil post. He applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi and eventually cleared the written examination and interview, emerging successful in 2022.

He thereafter approached the competent authority seeking an NOC and discharge from service so that he could join the post. However, his request was rejected.

Singh then approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which held that he had been rightly denied the NOC by the Air Officer Commanding. He subsequently moved the Delhi High Court, but his writ petition was also dismissed.

The Supreme Court noted that AFO No. 33/2017 was framed to balance the personal aspirations of Airmen seeking better career prospects in civil life with the organisational requirements of the Indian Air Force.

The order prescribes the eligibility criteria for Airmen to apply for civil posts after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority.

Can the requirement of prior permission be waived after selection?

No. The Supreme Court said the requirement is mandatory, particularly when the consequences of non-compliance are specifically prescribed.

The bench noted that Clause 19 of the AFO makes it clear that permission to apply for a civil post is different from the subsequent grant of an NOC by the competent authority.

It further noted that a request for an NOC is liable to be rejected if the individual had not obtained prior permission from his superior before applying for the civil post. Clause 20 also clarifies that permission to apply for a civil post and the subsequent grant of an NOC are privileges and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

"Where the consequence of non-compliance is expressly stipulated, such as the rejection of a request for a No Objection Certificate, these provisions cannot be waived at the will of the individual, as they are essential for maintaining operational preparedness and manning levels," Court said.

The Bench rejected the argument that the requirements under the AFO were merely procedural and could therefore be waived to protect the appellant's substantive right to take up the civil post.

Airmen cannot bypass the prescribed procedure

Court said Airmen are members of a disciplined force and the requirement of obtaining prior permission before applying for a civil post has a direct connection with regulating the premature discharge of Airmen from the IAF.

"It must be borne in mind that Airmen are members of the IAF, a disciplined force," the Bench said.

Court added that the requirement of prior permission and the subsequent grant of an NOC cannot be treated as simple procedural requirements that can be dispensed with at the will of the concerned Airman.

The Bench further observed that AFO No. 33/2017 does not prevent an Airman from seeking better career prospects. It only prescribes the manner in which such an opportunity is required to be pursued.

"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," Court said.

The Supreme Court also examined the factual findings recorded by the AFT and affirmed by the Delhi High Court.

The AFT had found that Singh was unable to show that he had sought prior permission before applying for the civil post. The high court also examined the relevant material and accepted the finding.

The Supreme Court noted that Singh had failed to produce any documentary material showing that he had submitted his online application on November 25, 2020, or his offline application on November 27, 2020, after obtaining the required prior permission.

"We, thus, find that the appellant has not been able to produce any material whatsoever to enable this court to take a different view of the matter," the Bench said.

"It is, thus, clear that the appellant failed to obtain prior permission before applying for the civil post," it added.

Court, therefore, found no reason to interfere with the findings of the AFT and the Delhi High Court and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Nakhat Singh Vs Union of India And Others

Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026