Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

WP (C) 7526/2012

Advocates

Represented by: Mr. S.S Pandey, Advocate.
Represented by: Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate.

Judges

Pradeep Nandrajog
Manmohan Singh, JJ.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Oral) by PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner before the Court, Deepak Rajak, enlisted in the Indian Air Force as a Fitter on March 29, 2005, having discontinued formal college studies earlier for financial reasons and later obtained a BA (Hons.) in Public Administration through distance learning. He applied directly to the UPSC for the Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandant) Examination 2010 — a Group 'A' post — without forwarding his application through Air Force channels, contrary to applicable procedure.

Petitioner succeeded in the examination and sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and a Discharge Certificate from the Air Force to be relieved for appointment as Assistant Commandant. The Air Force refused relief on two grounds expressed in the opinion: (1) the petitioner did not forward the application through proper departmental channels or inform the department prior to applying; and (2) according to Air Force Order No. 14/2008 (AFO 14/2008), an Air Force person may not apply for a civil post unless he has completed seven years' service from the date of enrolment — and at the time the petitioner submitted the application to UPSC in June 2010 he had not completed seven years' service. The petitioner, however, had completed seven years' service by the time of the Court's hearing.

The Single-Judge Court proceeded to determine the petition after referring to its own prior decision on identical facts (Cpl Sandeep Kumar v. UOI, decided August 21, 2012), and other Division Bench decisions dealing with the same policy provision. The Court disposed of the petition by issuing a mandamus to the respondents to grant the NOC and Discharge Certificate within one week so the petitioner could report for duty to the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and ordered no costs.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under Air Force Order No. 14/2008, an Air Force personnel applying for a Group 'A' post is entitled to discharge/NOC if he had not completed seven years' service at the time he submitted the application, but had completed seven years' service by the time he sought discharge.
Whether a technical false declaration in the UPSC application form (specifically that the applicant had informed his department when he had not) is a sufficient ground to deny discharge/NOC for a successful candidate for a Group 'A' post.
Whether the Court should grant relief (mandamus for NOC and discharge) in light of competing interests: organizational discipline and procedure versus the individual aspirational and socioeconomic considerations of the petitioner.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Position

The petitioner applied for and succeeded in the UPSC examination for a Group 'A' post (Assistant Commandant) and seeks a NOC and discharge to join the Central Reserve Police Force.
Although he submitted the application directly (not through Air Force channels), by the time of the Court's consideration he had completed more than seven years' service in the Air Force, which he contends satisfies the requirement in AFO 14/2008 for entitlement to discharge for Group 'A' posts.

Respondents' Position (as recorded in the opinion)

The Air Force refused to issue a NOC and discharge certificate on two grounds stated in the opinion: (a) the petitioner did not forward the application or inform the department as required by procedure; and (b) the petitioner had not completed seven years' service at the time he submitted the application to UPSC (June 2010), as required by AFO 14/2008.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Cpl Sandeep Kumar v. UOI, WP (C) No. 4864/2012 (order dated August 21, 2012)	The Court held on identical facts that where an Air Force person seeking discharge for a Group 'A' post had not completed seven years at the time of applying but had completed seven years by the time he sought discharge, the ethos of AFO 14/2008 was satisfied and the right to be discharged would flow.	The Single-Judge applied the same reasoning and equity as in Cpl Sandeep Kumar's case to grant identical relief (mandamus for NOC and discharge) to the present petitioner.
Pradeep Kumar v. UOI, WP (C) No. 8760/2008 (unreported order dated December 16, 2008)	Interpreted a pari-materia policy: emphasized that the ethos of the policy requires seven years' service before seeking discharge; held that completion of seven years by the time of seeking discharge (even if not at application date) suffices for Group 'A' posts.	The Court relied on this decision as authoritative support for the proposition that the seven-year requirement is measured by the time of seeking discharge and not strictly by the date of application.
Cpl. N.K. Jhakhar v. UOI, WP (C) No. 9088/2008 (order dated October 21, 2009)	Reiterated the view that the seven-year service criterion for discharge under the relevant policy is to be understood such that completion of seven years by the time of seeking discharge entitles a candidate for Group 'A' posts.	Used as one of multiple Division Bench precedents affirming the interpretation followed by the Court in awarding relief to the petitioner.
Cpl. Praveen Kumar v. UOI, WP (C) No. 13420/2009 (order dated November 30, 2009)	Reiterated the same principle as above concerning the seven-year requirement and entitlement to discharge for Group 'A' posts.	Cited as reinforcing authority supporting the Court's grant of mandamus directing issuance of NOC and discharge certificate.
Cpl. Charan Singh v. UOI, WP (C) No. 3257/2010 (order dated July 28, 2010)	Again reiterated the principle that completion of seven years by the time of seeking discharge satisfies the policy requirement for Group 'A' posts.	Relied upon collectively with the other Division Bench decisions to apply consistent precedent to the present petition.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by noting that it had recently disposed of an identical matter (Cpl Sandeep Kumar) where it had examined Air Force Order No. 14/2008 and the policy framework relating to permission/NOC and discharge for Air Force personnel seeking civil employment.

The relevant provisions of AFO 14/2008 were analyzed: (a) Paragraph 1 stipulates that no Air Force personnel would be permitted to apply for a civil post or a post in a Public Sector Undertaking unless he has served for seven years from the date of enrolment; (b) for Group 'A' posts the right to be relieved from service is a matter of right, whereas for other posts relief may be subject to service criticality; and (c) paragraph 7 (quoted in the opinion) prescribes that application for NOC is to be submitted after receiving call/verification letter or after result of written test and that NOC must be obtained before submitting application for discharge on being selected.

The Court considered the Air Force's stated reasons for refusing relief: (1) non-compliance with departmental procedure (application not forwarded through channels / false declaration that department was informed), and (2) absence of seven years' service at the time the application was submitted to UPSC. The Court expressly acknowledged the potential public-interest concern that condoning an incorrect declaration might encourage breach of discipline.

However, the Court drew a distinction between declarations that pertain to core eligibility (which might affect public employment substantively) and declarations that relate to procedural formalities; the opinion treats the latter as less weighty in comparison. The Court weighed competing interests — the institutional interest in discipline and proper procedure against the individual's socioeconomic background, career aspirations, and the fact that he had actually completed seven years' service by the time relief was sought.

Relying on the unreported December 16, 2008 decision (Pradeep Kumar) and subsequent Division Bench decisions (N.K. Jhakhar; Praveen Kumar; Charan Singh) which interpreted the policy to mean that the seven-year service requirement is satisfied if the person has completed seven years by the time he seeks discharge, the Court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to the same equitable relief. The Court therefore applied settled precedent and equitable considerations rather than allowing a procedural misstep (a wrong declaration regarding prior intimation) to operate as a bar to discharge for a Group 'A' post where the substantive eligibility (seven years' service at time of discharge) was met.

On this basis, and noting that the mandamus issued in the earlier Cpl Sandeep Kumar case had been complied with, the Court directed respondents to issue the NOC and Discharge Certificate and relieve the petitioner within one week so he could join the Central Reserve Police Force.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is disposed of by issuing a mandamus directing the respondents to issue a No Objection Certificate and a Discharge Certificate and to relieve the petitioner from service within one week so that he may report for duties to the Central Reserve Police Force. The Court ordered No costs.

Implications:

Direct effect: The petitioner will be granted the NOC and Discharge Certificate and released from Air Force service to join the Central Reserve Police Force within the specified time-frame stated in the order.
Precedential context: The Court expressly followed its earlier decision in Cpl Sandeep Kumar and several Division Bench decisions interpreting AFO 14/2008 to mean that completion of seven years by the time the person seeks discharge satisfies the policy for entitlement to discharge for Group 'A' posts. The decision applies established precedent rather than announcing a new legal principle.

This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts or legal positions beyond those in the text.

Show full summary ...

Deepak Rajak Petitioner v. Union Of India & Ors. S

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. As recent as on August 21, 2012, we had allowed WP (C) No. 4864/2012 ‘Cpl Sandeep Kumar v. UOI’ on complete identical facts. We had opined as under:-

“1. Still in his teens, barely past eighteen, but less than nineteen years of age, armed with a Senior Secondary High School Certificate, the petitioner joined service under the Indian Air Force as an Airman on January 12, 2004. He obviously did so for the reason his parents could educate him no further and there was a financial constraint, if not stress, in the family. As a young lad, barely past the age of eighteen, the petitioner picked up public employment and after appropriating a small portion of his earning for himself, remitted the same to his parents so that in their old age, even they could find some joy in life. The petitioner is a native of village Khaleta District Rewari, Haryana.

2. But the petitioner had a higher vision in life. While serving the Indian Air Force he completed higher education and obtained a graduate degree. He kept on reading and enhancing his knowledge.

3. Who does not desire to achieve greater heights in life? Except the lazy, we can think of none.

4. The petitioner is not a lazy person. He not only acquired a further degree when in service, but even read enough to sit at a competitive examination conducted by UPSC for the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Para Military Forces.

5. Responding to an advertisement dated May 29, 2010 inviting application from eligible candidates to sit at the examination pertaining to the recruitment of Assistant Commandants in the Central Para Military Forces, then aged 24 years, the petitioner submitted the necessary application form. He committed a mistake which is now being held against him. Required to certify in the application form that he had informed his department that he would be taking the examination in question, without informing his department, the petitioner submitted the application form and disclosed therein that he had informed his department.

6. The requirement of the form admittedly is, that those who are in Government service should either get the form forwarded through their office or alternatively could submit the form directly but expressly recording an undertaking in the form that they had informed the concerned department of having submitted the form.

7. The hard work put by the petitioner paid dividends when the result was declared in January 2012 and the petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 68 of the list of successful candidates allocated to Central Industrial Security Force. On March 26, 2012, the petitioner received a provisional letter of offer which required the petitioner to obtain a discharge from the Air Officer Commanding. The petitioner submitted the necessary application which was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had applied for the post in question without prior intimation to the department and additionally for the reason when the petitioner had applied for the post in question he had not completed 7 years' service from the date of enrollment in the Indian Air Force.

8. As per Air Force Order No. 14/2008 dated September 19, 2008, guidelines have been framed on permission to be granted to Air Force Personnel to apply for civil posts or posts in Public Sector Undertakings. Vide paragraph 1 of AFO 14/2008 it is stipulated that no Air Force personnel would be permitted to apply for a civil post or a post in a Public Sector Undertaking unless he has served for 7 years from the date of enrollment. Further, if the post is a Group ‘A’ post, the right to be relieved from service is a matter of right but for other posts the right to be discharged is subject to the requirement and need of the Air Force which is based upon the criticality in the trade i.e number of officers available in a particular discipline; and if the number is less, the same would be treated as a critical situation.

9. The post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Para Military Forces is admittedly a Group ‘A’ post and thus the issue of criticality in the discipline in which the petitioner is serving in the Air Force is irrelevant.

10. As noted, the reason why the petitioner is not being discharged from service is that he did not inform the department before he submitted the application form to UPSC and secondly as on the date when he submitted the application form he had not served the Air Force for 7 years.

11. As noted, the petitioner joined the Air Force on January 12, 2004 and would have thus completed 7 years service as on January 12, 2011. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted the application form to UPSC in June 2010, by which date the petitioner had not completed 7 years service.

12. AFO 14/2008 requires a No Objection Certificate to be obtained by Air Force personnel for being discharged from the Air Force, and vide para 7 of the policy it is stipulated as under:-

“7. Application for NOC is to be submitted by the individual after receiving call letter from the interview/verification of documents or after the result of written test where selection is based on success in written test only. However, in all cases NOC is to be obtained by the individual invariably before submitting application for discharge on being selected for the civil post.”

13. In an unreported decision dated December 16, 2008 in WP (C) No. 8760/2008 Pradeep Kumar v. UOI, considering a pari-materia policy framed by the Air Force, where the petitioner therein had similarly applied to take the examination for the post of Assistant Commandant in a Para Military Force but had not completed 7 years service but by the time the result was declared and when he sought a discharge, had completed 7 years service, the Division Bench held that the ethos of the policy was that a person should have served Air Force for 7 years before he could seek discharge and thus it hardly mattered whether on the date when he had applied for the job the person had not completed 7 years service; if when the person sought discharge he had served for 7 years, the right to be discharged, for Group ‘A’ posts, would automatically flow.

14. The said view has been reiterated by various Division Benches in the decisions dated October 21, 2009: WP (C) No. 9088/2008 Cpl. N.K Jhakhar v. UOI, dated November 30, 2009: WP (C) No. 13420/2009 Cpl. Praveen Kumar v. UOI, and dated July 28, 2010: WP (C) No. 3257/2010 Cpl. Charan Singh v. UOI.

15. It may be true that if the petitioner is directed to be discharged by the Air Force Authorities we may be encouraging a breach of discipline and would be condoning wrong information furnished by prospective candidates while filling up the application forms. On facts we have noted that the petitioner furnished a wrong declaration when he submitted the application form that he had informed his department of so doing: a declaration which is admittedly wrong.

16. But, declarations which relate to a vital information which would have a bearing on public employment i.e eligibility, declarations pertaining to character etc. would stand on a footing different than declarations which relate to procedures.

17. Courts often face a dilemma where competing interests clash, but then it is the duty of the Court to solve the same. The dilemma which we face in the instant case is of a young man who stands before us and beseeches us that coming from a humble socio-economic background, standing by his family by taking up a job at a young age of 18 and having served the nation for 7 years, first as an Airman and then as a Corporal with the Air Force, he should be pardoned for a technical wrong information supplied by him and the consequences of he being accountable for an action be factored i.e he would continue to languish and would retire as a JCO whereas joining CISF as an Assistant Commandant at the age of 26 years (this is the petitioner's current age) his career prospects may take him to the top most post.

18. Aspirations of the youth of this country, and especially of those who come from humble origins need to be nurtured and protected, and in our opinion not sacrificed on the altar of punishments. That apart, what purpose would it serve if we hold it against the petitioner: he would always have a brooding ill will against the system and would always feel cheated in life of not being permitted to achieve what he could by dint of hardwork. He would be a disgruntled Airman and suffice would it be to state that it is better not to have any employee rather than to have a disgruntled employee in the organization.

19. The aspirations of the petitioner, his hard work and his achievements when weighed in the scale with the interest of the organization in the other side, compels us to hold the scale in favour of the petitioner, and we feel that the petitioner deserves a pardon for the wrong committed by him, and thus we dispose of the writ petition issuing a mandamus to the respondents to issue a No Objection Certificate as also a Discharge Certificate and relieve the petitioner from service within a period of one week from today so that the petitioner is able to report for duties to Central Industrial Security Force.

20. No costs.”

2. Deepak Rajak the petitioner before us today is identically placed. Clearing the Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2002 and clearing the Pre-Engineering Admission Test he took admission to obtain a degree in B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) but had to leave studies at a young age of 19 years in the second year of the degree course due to compelling family circumstance of fiscal deprivation. He competed for a Tradesman job in the Indian Air Force and was enrolled as a Fitter on March 29, 2005. But the lure of education made petitioner to continue gaining knowledge through distance learning and today he possesses a degree in Public Administration: BA (Hons.) Public Administration.

3. In technical violation of the rules which required applications to be forwarded for seeking appointment in other organizations through the Indian Air Force, petitioner forwarded his application directly to UPSC when Central Police Force (Assistant Commandant) Examination 2010 was held for the post of Assistant Commandant i.e a Group ‘A’ post in Pay Band - III: Rs. 15,600 - Rs. 39,100 (Grade Pay: Rs. 5,400).

4. Petitioner has succeeded and wants to be relieved by the Indian Air Force who are refusing to relieve him on the ground that he did not forward his application through proper channels and secondly for the reason as per the applicable Air Force Order No. 14/2008 he could have only done so after he had rendered seven years' service.

5. We highlight that as of today the petitioner has rendered more than seven years' service with the Indian Air Force.

6. The petitioner is currently in Pay Band-I: Rs. 5,200-20,500 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400.

7. We have discussed AFO No. 14/2008 in our decision dated August 21, 2012 in Cpl Sandeep Kumar's case (supra) and have brought out the equity in favour of the petitioner therein. Instant petitioner would be entitled to same benefit.

8. We are informed that the mandamus issued in favour of Cpl Sandeep Kumar has been complied with and the necessary No Objection Certificate as also Discharge Certificate has been issued to him and he has been relieved from service.

9. Petition stands disposed of issuing a mandamus to the respondents to issue a No Objection Certificate as also a Discharge Certificate and relieve the petitioner from service within a period of one week from today so that the petitioner is able to report for duties to Central Reserve Police Force.

10. No costs.

Deepak Rajak Petitioner v. Union Of India & Ors. S

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Oral) by PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Position

Respondents' Position (as recorded in the opinion)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Deepak Rajak Petitioner v. Union Of India & Ors. S

Comments