JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J

1. The appellant, an Airman holding the post of Corporal, on completion of minimum service of seven years desired to serve on a civil post. For this purpose, he was required to seek permission of the competent Air Force Authority as provided under Air Force Order No.33/2017¹[For Short, ‘AFO’]. As per the said AFO, such permission was required to be sought prior to making an application for appointment on a civil post. The AFO also provided for various modalities to be complied with while seeking such permission. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in November 2020 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Hindi. Written examination for the said post was held on 22/23.09.2021. The results of the said examination were declared on 13.04.2022 and the appellant on being successful was called for interview on 27.09.2022. On 01.10.2022, the appellant was informed of his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Thereafter, on 03.10.2022, the appellant made an application to the competent authority seeking grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’²[For short, ‘NOC’] and discharge to enable him to join on the post of Assistant Professor. The Air Officer Commanding on 14.10.2022, however, did not recommend the appellant’s application.

2. The appellant being aggrieved filed an Original Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi³[For Short, ‘the AFT’]. He sought quashing of the remarks endorsed on his request letter by the concerned Authority not recommending his candidature. Reply was filed by the respondents stating therein that as the appellant failed to comply with the requirements prescribed under the AFO, his candidature was not recommended. The AFT by its order dated 06.12.2023 held that though the appellant had secured Skill Grade ‘C’ while the requirement under Clause 6 of the AFO was possessing Skill Grade ‘A’, the same could not be a ground to deny the appellant a ‘NOC’. This was in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Subhash Chand Vs. Union of India and others, W.P.(C) No.634 of 2020 decided on 11.03.2020 whereby the requirement of possession of Skill Grade ‘A’ had been held to be ultra vires. The AFT, however, found that the appellant failed to seek prior permission of the competent authority while applying for the concerned civil post. There was no material on record to indicate online submission of any application nor were the requirements of Clause 11 of the AFO satisfied. In view of Clauses 9, 11 and 12 of the AFO, the AFT held that the appellant was rightly denied the grant of NOC by the Air Officer Commanding. The Original Application was, accordingly, dismissed.

3. The appellant, being aggrieved, approached the Delhi High Court⁵[For short, ‘the High Court’] and raised a challenge to the order of the AFT. After due consideration, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the appellant had failed to obtain any prior permission as required by Clause 9 of the AFO. There was no evidence on record to indicate submission of a proper online application or even an offline application. It, therefore, affirmed the findings recorded by the AFT and dismissed the writ petition.

Being aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal.

4. Mr. Arvind Nayar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant while reiterating the submissions canvassed before the AFT as well as the High Court submitted that the appellant having been selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, he ought not to be deprived of such opportunity for not complying with mere procedural requirements. Referring to various clauses of the AFO, it was submitted that the same merely indicated the manner in which an Airman was required to seek prior permission of the competent authority while seeking appointment on a civil post. The same did not govern the substantive ri