2026 INSC 758 | 29 July 2026
What the case was about
This case asked whether an Indian Air Force airman who secures a civilian appointment can bypass a service rule that requires him to obtain permission before applying for the post. Nakhat Singh, a Corporal with more than seven years of service and Skill Grade ‘C’, applied for a teaching vacancy without seeking the prior approval required under Air Force Order No. 33/2017. After he was selected in October 2022, he requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge. The Air Officer Commanding refused because he had not complied with the prerequisite. The Armed Forces Tribunal and the Delhi High Court both upheld the refusal. Singh argued before the Supreme Court that the permission rule was a mere procedural formality that should be overlooked in the interests of justice once a candidate had already been chosen. The Court had to decide whether the regulation was mandatory or directory, and whether an enrolled airman could leave the service at will once a civilian offer was in hand.
The key facts
In November 2020, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised a post of Assistant Professor. Singh applied for it without obtaining the prior permission mandated by Clause 9 of AFO No. 33/2017 (para 8). He was selected in October 2022. Only then, on 3 October 2022, did he approach the Air Force for an NOC and for discharge to join the civil post. The Air Officer Commanding rejected his request on 14 October 2022 because he had not sought permission before applying (para 8). Singh claimed that he had attempted to submit online and offline applications for permission in November 2020, but he produced no proof of their submission or acknowledgement (para 8). He first challenged the denial by filing an Original Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi, which dismissed it on 6 December 2023. The Delhi High Court affirmed that decision on a writ petition. Singh then filed the present civil appeal before the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Court
The appeal presented three issues for determination.
First, had Singh actually complied with the prerequisite of seeking prior permission under Clause 9 of AFO No. 33/2017 before applying for the civil post? (para 8)
Second, were the requirements of AFO No. 33/2017—especially the prior-permission condition—mandatory obligations integrally linked to service interests, or merely procedural steps whose non-compliance could be excused after selection? (para 10)
Third, does an enrolled airman have an unqualified right to depart from service at will during the term of his engagement? (para 11)
What the Court decided and why
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar unanimously dismissed the appeal and declined to interfere with the denial of the NOC and discharge from the Indian Air Force (para 12).
No proof of prior permission: The Court affirmed the concurrent factual findings of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that Singh had failed to place any documentary material on record to prove his alleged online application on 25 November 2020 or his alleged offline application on 27 November 2020 (para 8). It therefore held that he had not obtained the requisite prior permission before applying for the Assistant Professor post (para 8).
Mandatory, not procedural: The Court ruled that the requirements under AFO No. 33/2017 are mandatory, not optional formalities. It explained that the rules have a necessary nexus with the object of regulating premature discharge so as to protect the Indian Air Force’s operational preparedness and manning levels (para 10). Because Clause 19 of the AFO expressly provides that an NOC request shall be rejected if the airman failed to seek prior permission, the prescription carries its own consequence for breach; where a rule stipulates such a consequence, compliance is mandatory (para 10). The Court stressed that an airman cannot skip the first step, create a fait accompli by obtaining a civilian selection, and then demand that the requirement be waived (para 10). It further noted that the AFO seeks to balance personal career aspirations with the paramount interests of the service, and that an enrolled person cannot assert a general right to act in breach of those orders (para 11).
No unqualified right to leave: The Court rejected the contention that an enrolled member has an absolute right to terminate service at will during the term of engagement (para 11). It observed that allowing unilateral exits would seriously impinge upon manning levels and operational preparedness, particularly in an era of rapid technological advancement in military operations, and that the interests of the service are of paramount importance (para 11). The Court also pointed out that Clause 20 of the AFO clarifies that permission to apply and the subsequent grant of an NOC are privileges, not rights that can be claimed as a matter of right (para 7).
Disposition: The Court dismissed the civil appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, and made clear that it would not interfere with the refusal to grant the NOC or the refusal to discharge Singh (para 12).
Why it matters
The judgment is significant because it establishes that armed-forces personnel cannot use a civilian job offer to override statutory engagement terms. By holding the prior-permission rule mandatory, the Court prevented service members from manufacturing a fait accompli and then claiming that a mere procedural hiccup should be overlooked (para 10). The decision reaffirms that operational readiness and adequate manning levels outweigh an individual’s desire to leave before completing an engagement term, especially as modern military forces require carefully managed human and technological resources (para 11). It also underscores that permission to seek civilian employment and the subsequent NOC are privileges governed by strict service conditions, not entitlements that can be asserted at will (paras 7, 11). For the armed forces, the ruling safeguards the integrity of personnel-management rules; for airmen, it is a clear reminder that the process of seeking a civil post must begin with permission, not end with it.