Technical resignation is a discretionary concession by the employer, contingent upon prior approval/NOC at the time of external application; it cannot be claimed as a right if the employee consciously disregarded instructions by applying without mandate, especially where the employer proves administrative exigencies like staff shortage.

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)

1. This OA has been filed on 26.06.2025 for the following relief, claimed in para 8 of the OA:-

“A. Issue writ, writs in the nature of direction to setting aside the Office letter No.CSB/NSSO/3(2674)/19/ES/ dated 13.06.2025 vide ANNEXURE-A1 (colly) together with letter No.CSB/NSSO/3(2675)/19/ES dated 04.04.2024 vide ANNEXURE-A1 issued by the Respondent i.e. Central Silk Board Bengaluru, with the direction to issue required NOC and the relieving letter forthwith to the applicant so that she can proceed to join the duties on and from 01.07.2025; and/or

B. Any other order or orders that this court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

2. At the time of final arguments, both parties agreed that the pleadings, controversy involved in this case are similar / identical with the previous decided case OA No.244/2025 ( Dr. Manjunatha G.R. Vs. Central Silk Board ). That O.A. was filed by Dr. Manjunatha G.R., which was finally dismissed by this Tribunal. Therefore, it is not necessary to mention the detailed facts of this case.

3. The present applicant was on the post of Scientist-‘C’ when he applied for the post of “Assistant Professor” in the “University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS)”. The department did not grant the “No Objection Certificate”. Dr. Manjunatha G.R. was also working upon the post of Scientist-‘C’ when he applied for the post of “Associate Professor” in compliance of the same recruitment notice dated 24.02.2024. In both cases after denial of NOC by Respondent, the applicant participated in the selection process and after selection they submitted their tactical resignations. Respondent did not accept.

4. Dr. Manjunatha G.R. filed the OA No.244/2025 before this Tribunal. The Division Bench of this Tribunal passed separate judgments on 26.08.2025. As per judgment passed by Member (Judicial), the claim was dismissed, while as per the judgment passed by Member (Administrative), the claim was partly allowed. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Third Member. The Third Member decided the case on 10.11.2025 and supported the view taken by Member (Judicial). Therefore, the matter has finally been concluded by this Tribunal.

5. It will be useful to refer the paras 8 to 19 of the judgment passed by Member (Judicial):-

“8. It is submitted by the applicant counsel that a notification of addendum for the same direct recruitment was released on 13.03.2024 which is Annexure - A9 and as per the aforesaid addendum, no prior permission was required and the applicant was competent to submit his application directly. It appears from the aforesaid addendum dated 13.03.2024 (Annexure – A9) that the Rule 11 of the “Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977” has been amended. According to aforesaid rule, the University also amended the instruction No.13 (a) as under:-

“13 (a) A Government servant applying for selection to any service or post shall submit his application directly to the selecting Authority. As soon as his selection is notified, he shall intimate the fact of his selection to the head of the department in which he is working and seek issue of no-objection certificate to accept appointment to the post for which he is selected.”

9. The University adopted the amendment made by the Karnataka State Government in Rule 11 of the “Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977”. But the aforesaid rules are not applicable to the applicant because the applicant was not the employee of Karnataka State Government. He was the employee of Central Silk Board. The Central Silk Board is a statutory body constituted under the “Central Silk Board Act, 1948”