Mandatory Procedure in Disciplined Forces: Supreme Court Upholds Prior Permission Requirement for Airmen Seeking Civil Posts

Case Snapshot

Case Name: NAKHAT SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2026 INSC 758

Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Defence Law, Administrative Law, Constitutional Law

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by an Airman (Corporal) who had applied for and been selected for the post of Assistant Professor but was denied a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge from the Indian Air Force. The appellant had failed to obtain prior permission from the competent Air Force Authority before applying for the civil post, as required by Air Force Order No. 33/2017 (AFO 33/2017).

The appellant argued that the requirements under AFO 33/2017 were merely procedural and directory, and their non-compliance should not deprive him of the opportunity to serve on a civil post. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the requirements were mandatory, as they were designed to balance the personal aspirations of Airmen with the operational preparedness of the Indian Air Force. The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India, which held that a member of the Air Force does not have an unqualified right to depart from service at his or her will.

The Court further noted that the appellant had failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that he had submitted an online or offline application for prior permission. Consequently, the AFT and High Court's findings were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Relevant Facts

The Appellant: NAKHAT SINGH was an Airman holding the post of Corporal in the Indian Air Force. He had completed the minimum service of seven years.

AFO No. 33/2017: This Air Force Order prescribed the eligibility criteria and procedure for Airmen seeking to apply for civil posts. Key provisions included:

• Minimum service of seven years

• Prior permission from the competent authority before applying for a civil post

• Subsequent NOC and discharge after selection

• Permission and NOC were "privileges," not rights

The Application: In November 2020, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi. The appellant applied for the post.

Lack of Prior Permission: The appellant claimed to have submitted an online application on November 25, 2020, and an offline application on November 27, 2020. However, he could not produce any proof of submission or acknowledgement. The AFT found that there was no evidence of any prior permission having been sought.

Selection: The appellant appeared for the written examination on September 22-23, 2021, and was called for an interview on September 27, 2022. On October 1, 2022, he was informed of his selection.

Request for NOC: On October 3, 2022, the appellant made an application seeking NOC and discharge. The Air Officer Commanding, on October 14, 2022, did not recommend the appellant's application.

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): The appellant filed an Original Application before the AFT, challenging the denial. The AFT dismissed the application, holding that the appellant had failed to seek prior permission and had not complied with Clauses 9, 11, and 12 of AFO 33/2017.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.