Nakhat Singhv.Union of India & Ors

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.

Delhi High Court: The appellant approached the Delhi High Court, which affirmed the AFT's findings and dismissed the writ petition.

Appeal to Supreme Court: The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the appellant had complied with the requirement of seeking prior permission from the competent Air Force Authority before applying for a civil post, as required by Air Force Order No. 33/2017?

2. Whether the requirements prescribed under AFO 33/2017 were merely procedural and directory, and thus could be waived in the interests of justice, or whether they were mandatory?

3. Whether a member of the Air Force has an unqualified right to depart from service at his or her will during the term of engagement?

Legal Framework

• Air Force Order No. 33/2017 (AFO 33/2017): Issued by the Chief of the Air Staff to regulate the manner in which Airmen could seek permission for applying to civil posts and subsequently seek NOC and discharge.
  Clause 7: Permission to apply for a civil post is a pre-requisite for grant of NOC.
  Clause 9: Prescribed the manner of online registration for seeking permission.
  Clauses 11 and 12: Prescribed submission of requisite documents for consideration of permission.
  Clause 19: Grant of permission to apply should not be construed as grant of NOC. Request for NOC liable to be rejected if prior permission was not obtained.
  Clause 20: Permission to apply and subsequent grant of NOC are privileges, not rights.

• Air Force Act, 1950: Governs the enrolment, service, and discharge of members of the Indian Air Force.

• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: Right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

• Article 33 of the Constitution of India: Empowers Parliament to modify the application of fundamental rights to members of the armed forces.

Important Precedents Relied Upon

1. Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India & Ors.

This was the key precedent relied upon by the Supreme Court. In this case, an Airman applied for the post of Probationary Officer without completing the mandatory period of service or obtaining prior permission as required by Air Force Order No. 14/2008.

Key Findings from Amit Kumar Roy:

• 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 would seriously impinge upon manning levels and operational preparedness of the armed forces.

• A person enrolled in the Air Force cannot assert a general right to act in breach or defiance of Air Force orders.

• The balance between the interests of the service and the requests of persons enrolled to take civilian employment is reflected in the provisions of the Air Force orders.

2. Subhash Chand v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court in this case held that the requirement of possessing Skill Grade 'A' under AFO 33/2017 was ultra vires. This judgment was relied upon by the appellant to argue that the requirement of Skill Grade 'A' was not applicable to him. The Supreme Court acknowledged this but noted that the appellant still failed to comply with the prior permission requirement.

3. Other Judgments Cited by the Appellant:

• CPL N.K. Jakhar v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

• Sonu v. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)

The appellant relied on these judgments to argue that procedural requirements could be waived. The Supreme Court distinguished these cases, holding that they were not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the requirements under AFO 33/2017 were mandatory, not merely procedural.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

I. Object of AFO No. 33/2017

The Court examined the object behind the issuance of AFO No. 33/2017. It noted that premature discharge of Airmen prior to completion of their regular engagement was found to affect the manning level in respective trades of the IAF and had an adverse impact on its operational preparedness.

The Court's Observation: AFO 33/2017 was framed to achieve the organisational aim of the IAF while balancing the personal aspirations of air warriors for better career prospects in civil life. The order prescribes eligibility criteria, including minimum service of seven years and possession of Skill Grade 'A' (though the latter was held ultra vires by the Delhi High Court).

II. The Factual Finding: No Evidence of Prior Permission

The Court examined the factual findings of the AFT, which were affirmed by the High Court. The appellant claimed to have submitted an online application on November 25, 2020, and an offline application on November 27, 2020. However, the appellant could not produce:

• Any proof of submission of the online application.

• Any acknowledgement of the offline application.

• Any grievance regarding his inability to submit the online application.

• Any reference to the offline application in his request letter dated October 3, 2022.

The Court's Finding: The appellant was unable to show that he had indeed sought prior permission to apply for a civil post. The factual findings of the AFT and the High Court did not call for any interference.

III. Procedural vs. Mandatory: The Appellant's Contention

The appellant argued that the requirements prescribed under AFO 33/2017 were merely procedural and directory, and their non-compliance could be waived in the interests of justice.

The Court's Reasoning:

The Court rejected this contention, holding that the requirements were mandatory, not merely procedural.

Reasons:

1. Object and Purpose: The AFO was issued to regulate premature discharge of Airmen, which had an adverse impact on the operational preparedness of the IAF. The requirements have a necessary nexus with this object.

2. No Challenge to AFO: The appellant did not challenge the validity of AFO 33/2017. He was bound by its provisions.

3. Two Stages of Permission: The AFO contemplates seeking permission at two stages:
   First stage: Before applying for a civil post.
   Second stage: After receiving a call letter or after results are declared.

4. Clause 7: Permission to apply is a pre-requisite for grant of NOC.

5. Consequence of Failure: Clause 19 prescribes that a request for NOC is liable to be rejected if prior permission was not obtained.

6. Privilege, Not Right: Clause 20 clarifies that permission and NOC are privileges, not rights.

The Court's Conclusion: "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."

IV. No Unqualified Right to Depart from Service

The Court relied on Amit Kumar Roy v. Union of India to hold that 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.

Key Principles from Amit Kumar Roy:

• The provisions of the Air Force Act, rules, and terms of engagement belie the assertion of an unqualified right to leave service.

• AFOs emphasise aspects such as the criticality of the trade and the exigencies of service, which need to be verified before permission is granted.

• Allowing an unqualified right to leave would seriously impinge upon manning levels and operational preparedness.

• A balance has been sought between the interests of the service and the requests of persons enrolled to take civilian employment.

The Court's Conclusion: "A person enrolled cannot assert a general right to act in breach or defiance of those orders."

V. Distinction from Other Judgments

The Court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the appellant (N.K. Jakhar and Sonu), holding that they were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Court did not elaborate on the distinction but noted that the requirements under AFO 33/2017 were mandatory, not merely procedural, and the appellant had failed to comply with them.

Ratio Decidendi and Key Legal Principles

1. Prior Permission Requirement is Mandatory

The requirement under Air Force Order No. 33/2017 to seek prior permission from the competent authority before applying for a civil post is mandatory, not directory. The consequence of failure to comply is prescribed in the AFO itself (rejection of NOC request).

2. No Unqualified Right to Depart from Service

A member of the Indian Air Force (and other disciplined forces) does not have an unqualified right to depart from service at his or her will during the term of engagement. Such a right would seriously impinge upon manning levels and operational preparedness.

3. AFOs are Binding

Air Force Orders are binding on members of the Indian Air Force. A person enrolled in the Air Force cannot act in breach or defiance of these orders.

4. Permission and NOC are Privileges, Not Rights

Under AFO 33/2017, permission to apply for a civil post and subsequent grant of NOC are privileges, not rights. They cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

5. Burden of Proof on the Applicant

The burden is on the Airman to prove that they complied with the requirements of the AFO. In the absence of documentary evidence, the application for NOC can be rejected.

6. Two-Stage Permission

The AFO contemplates a two-stage process:

• Stage 1: Permission to apply for a civil post (before applying)

• Stage 2: NOC and discharge (after selection)

Skipping Stage 1 cannot be cured at Stage 2.

7. Mandatory vs. Directory

A prescribed pre-requisite is treated as mandatory if the consequence of failure to comply is stipulated in the relevant provision. Procedural requirements that have a substantive object and nexus with the purpose of the provision are not merely directory.

8. Disciplined Forces

Members of disciplined forces are subject to stricter regulations and cannot claim the same rights as civilians. The interests of the service are of paramount importance.

Important Court Observations

• "With a view to achieve its organisational aim and so as to balance the personal aspirations of air warriors from the IAF for better career prospects in civil life, AFO No.33/2017 was framed."

• "The first application stated to be made by the appellant was on 25.11.2020. It is his case that since the said online application could not be accepted by the concerned website, he made an offline application on 27.11.2020. The AFT has recorded a finding... that the appellant could not submit any proof of submission of his online application... as well as the offline application."

• "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, now he should be permitted to join the same."

• "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."

• "A person who has been 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."

• "A person enrolled cannot assert a general right to act in breach or defiance of those orders."

Final Outcome

Appeal Dismissed: The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal.

Costs: No order as to costs.

AFT and High Court Orders Affirmed: The orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Delhi High Court dismissing the appellant's claims were affirmed.

Practical Impact and Legal Strategy

Why the Judgment Matters

1. Clarifies the Mandatory Nature of Prior Permission

The judgment establishes that the requirement of prior permission under AFO 33/2017 is mandatory, not directory. Airmen cannot bypass this requirement and later claim that they were selected for a civil post and should be allowed to join.

2. Reaffirms the Limited Rights of Armed Forces Personnel

The judgment reaffirms that members of the armed forces have limited rights compared to civilians. They cannot claim an unqualified right to leave service at their will, as this would impact operational preparedness.

3. Protects the Operational Preparedness of the Armed Forces

The judgment protects the operational preparedness of the Indian Air Force by preventing premature discharge of Airmen who have not completed their engagement and have not obtained prior permission.

4. Distinguishes Between Procedural and Mandatory Requirements

The judgment provides guidance on distinguishing between procedural and mandatory requirements. Where a consequence is prescribed for non-compliance, the requirement is mandatory.

5. Prevents Fait Accompli Situations

The judgment prevents Airmen from creating a fait accompli—applying for and being selected to a civil post—and then seeking NOC on the ground that they have been selected.

How Advocates and Litigants May Rely Upon It

For Armed Forces Personnel:

• Must obtain prior permission before applying for civil posts

• Must maintain documentary evidence of compliance

• Cannot rely on the selection to a civil post as a ground for NOC

• Must complete the mandatory period of service (seven years) before seeking permission

For the Armed Forces/Union of India:

• Cite this judgment to enforce the mandatory requirements of AFOs

• Rely on the judgment to reject NOC applications where prior permission was not obtained

• Argue that permission and NOC are privileges, not rights

• Rely on the judgment to maintain operational preparedness

For Advocates:

• Cite this judgment to argue the mandatory nature of service rules in disciplined forces

• Rely on the judgment to argue that armed forces personnel have limited rights

• Use the judgment to distinguish between procedural and mandatory requirements

• Rely on Amit Kumar Roy along with this judgment to argue against unqualified rights

Can It Be Cited Before High Courts, Tribunals, or Subordinate Courts?

Yes, absolutely. This is a judgment of the Supreme Court of India (2026 INSC 758) and constitutes a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It can be cited before:

• The Supreme Court of India

• High Courts

• Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT)

• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

• Subordinate courts

• Any authority exercising service jurisdiction

Practical Implications for Future Litigation

1. Prior Permission is a Pre-Requisite

Airmen must obtain prior permission before applying for a civil post. The requirement is mandatory, and failure to comply will result in rejection of NOC.

2. Burden of Proof is on the Airman

The burden is on the Airman to prove compliance with the requirements of the AFO. Documentary evidence of submission of the application for prior permission must be maintained.

3. No Fait Accompli

An Airman cannot create a fait accompli by applying for and being selected to a civil post without prior permission and then claim that he should be allowed to join. The mandatory requirement cannot be bypassed.

4. Permission and NOC are Privileges

Permission to apply and subsequent NOC are privileges, not rights. They cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

5. Mandatory vs. Directory

The judgment provides a test for distinguishing between mandatory and directory requirements: if the consequence of non-compliance is prescribed, the requirement is mandatory.

6. Limited Rights of Armed Forces Personnel

Members of the armed forces do not have an unqualified right to depart from service at their will. The interests of the service are paramount.

7. Applicability to Other Disciplined Forces

The principles of this judgment apply to other disciplined forces as well, including the Army, Navy, and paramilitary forces. Similar requirements in their respective rules and orders would be treated as mandatory.

8. The Importance of Documentary Evidence

Airmen must maintain documentary evidence of compliance, including:

• Copy of the online application for permission

• Acknowledgement of receipt

• Correspondence with the competent authority

9. The Role of AFOs

AFOs are binding on members of the Indian Air Force. They cannot be ignored or bypassed.

10. Balance Between Aspirations and Operational Preparedness

The judgment strikes a balance between the personal aspirations of Airmen and the operational preparedness of the armed forces. This balance is reflected in the AFOs.