Supreme Court Rules Prior Permission Compulsory for Air Force Personnel Seeking Civil Posts

Background and Case Context

In Nakhat Singh Vs Union of India And Others, Civil Appeal No. 9050 of 2026, decided on 29/07/2026, the Supreme Court of India examined whether an Air Force Corporal could insist on grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge from service after securing selection as an Assistant Professor in a State-run institution, without having first obtained prior permission as mandated under Air Force Order No.33/2017 (AFO No.33/2017).

The appellant, an enrolled Airman of the Indian Air Force (IAF), approached the Court after concurrent rejection of his claim before:

  • The Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi (the AFT), and
  • The High Court of Delhi (the High Court).

Both fora had held that he failed to satisfy the essential condition of obtaining prior permission from the competent authority before applying for the civil post, as prescribed by AFO No.33/2017. The Supreme Court upheld these findings and dismissed the appeal.

Factual Matrix

Employment History and Civil Job Application

  1. The appellant was serving as a Corporal in the IAF and had completed the minimum qualifying service of seven years required for seeking civil employment under AFO No.33/2017.
  2. In November 2020, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi.
  3. The appellant submitted his application pursuant to this advertisement and appeared for the written examination conducted on 22/23.09.2021.
  4. The examination results were declared on 13.04.2022. Having cleared the written test, the appellant was called for interview on 27.09.2022.
  5. On 01.10.2022, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission informed the appellant of his selection.
  6. Only thereafter, on 03.10.2022, the appellant applied to the competent Air Force authority seeking:
    • Grant of NOC, and
    • Discharge from service for joining the post of Assistant Professor.

The Air Officer Commanding declined to recommend his case on 14.10.2022, primarily due to non-compliance with the prior permission requirement under AFO No.33/2017.

Proceedings Before the Armed Forces Tribunal

The appellant filed an Original Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 seeking to quash the endorsement dated 14.10.2022 and to secure a direction for grant of NOC and discharge.

The respondents argued that:

  • The appellant had not followed the procedure laid out in AFO No.33/2017.
  • Specifically, he had applied for the civil post without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority.

The AFT, by order dated 06.12.2023, held:

  • The condition in Clause 6 of the AFO requiring Skill Grade ‘A’ could not be invoked against the appellant, in light of Subhash Chand Vs. Union of India and others, where the Delhi High Court had declared that requirement ultra vires.
  • However, the AFT found that:
    • The appellant had not produced any reliable material to demonstrate that he had submitted an online application for prior permission on 25.11.2020.
    • There was no proof of any offline application dated 27.11.2020 either.
    • The requisites under Clause 11 and other connected provisions were not fulfilled.

Relying on Clauses 9, 11 and 12 of AFO No.33/2017, the AFT concluded that the appellant had not obtained prior permission before applying for the civil post; hence, denial of NOC was justified. The Original Application was dismissed.

Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court

The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court assailing the AFT’s order.

After scrutinising the record, the Division Bench held:

  • The appellant failed to secure prior permission as mandated by Clause 9 of the AFO.
  • No credible evidence of any online or offline prior permission application was available.
  • The factual findings of the AFT on this issue were sound and did not warrant interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court by way of civil appeal.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Contentions of the Appellant

On behalf of the appellant, learned Senior Advocate Mr.