Introduction

The case of Nakhut Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2024 DHC 463) heard by the Delhi High Court on January 23, 2024, presents a pivotal examination of the procedural compliance required by Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel seeking transition to civil employment. The petitioner, Nakhut Singh, a Corporal in the IAF with over eleven years of unblemished service, challenged the dismissal of his application by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). His primary contention revolved around the interpretation and enforcement of Air Force Order (AFO) 33/2017, specifically the requirement of holding a Skill Grade 'A' to be eligible for civil posts.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court reviewed the petition challenging an AFT order that dismissed Singh's application to join a gazetted civil post as an Assistant Professor in Rajasthan. Singh argued that AFO 33/2017's stipulation of a Skill Grade 'A' was unconstitutional, referencing the Subhash Chand v. Union of India & Ors. judgment, which deemed the Skill Grade 'A' requirement ultra vires. However, the court, aligning with the AFT's findings, concluded that Singh failed to comply with the procedural requisites of AFO 33/2017. Specifically, Singh did not provide sufficient evidence of his attempts to submit both online and offline applications for permission, thereby nullifying his eligibility despite the theoretical relaxation of the Skill Grade requirement.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases that shaped its outcome:

• Subhash Chand v. Union of India & Ors. (2020): This case challenged the constitutionality of AFO 33/2017's Skill Grade 'A' requirement. The court ruled it ultra vires, effectively removing the Skill Grade 'A' prerequisite for civil post applications.
• Sonu v. Union of India & Ors. (2021), Krishna Kant Yadav v. Union Of India (2020), and SGT Saman Singh Sengar v. Union of India & Ors. (2021): These cases reinforced the necessity of procedural compliance and the validity of AFOs in regulating the transition of military personnel to civil roles.
• Wing Commander Shyam Naithani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2022): Emphasized the limited scope of High Court's writ jurisdiction over AFT orders, particularly highlighting that only errors of jurisdiction or manifest illegality warrant intervention.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning hinged on a clear distinction between the substance and procedure of the law. While acknowledging the AFT's interpretation of Subhash Chand which negated the exclusive necessity of Skill Grade 'A', the judgment underscored the paramount importance of adhering to procedural safeguards under AFO 33/2017. Singh's failure to substantiate his attempts to secure permission—both online and offline—rendered his application non-compliant, irrespective of the relaxed Skill Grade criteria.

Furthermore, the court held that procedural compliance is not merely a bureaucratic formality but a substantive requirement ensuring organizational discipline and safeguarding institutional integrity. The absence of tangible evidence of Singh's application attempts, coupled with the non-receipt of any acknowledgment from the respondents, tipped the scales in favor of upholding the AFT's dismissal of his petition.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance on the inviolability of established procedural norms within military frameworks. It sends a clear message that while substantive rights (like the eligibility for civil posts) may evolve through judicial scrutiny, procedural adherence remains sacrosanct. Future cases involving military personnel seeking civil employment will likely scrutinize not only the substantive eligibility criteria but also the adherence to prescribed procedures meticulously. Additionally, this ruling may prompt the IAF and similar institutions to revisit and possibly streamline their application processes to prevent procedural hindrances in personnel transitions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Skill Grade: In the context of the IAF, officers and personnel are categorized based on their skill levels, denoted as Grades 'A', 'B', and 'C', with 'A' being the highest. These grades historically influenced eligibility for various roles, including transitions to civil employment.

Ultra Vires: A legal term meaning "beyond the powers." When a law or regulation is deemed ultra vires, it is considered beyond the authority of the legislating body or, in this case, the military order, and thus invalid.

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): A specialized judicial body in India that adjudicates disputes and complaints regarding the service matters of armed forces personnel.

Non-Objection Certificate (NOC): A document issued by the military authorities that indicates no objection to the service member's transition to another role or employment outside the military.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's dismissal of Nakhut Singh's petition underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in upholding both substantive rights and procedural integrity. While recognizing the reduced emphasis on Skill Grade 'A' for civil post eligibility, the court unequivocally enforced the necessity of procedural compliance as dictated by AFO 33/2017. This judgment not only reaffirms the importance of following established protocols within military hierarchies but also delineates the limits of judicial intervention in administrative matters. Moving forward, both military personnel and administrative bodies must prioritize meticulous adherence to procedural norms to ensure transparent and fair transitions between military and civilian roles.