Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

W.P.(C) Nos. 868,3637, 6300 & 8189 of 2018 page 4 of 24

8. The Petitioner again applied on 17th January 2018 to Respondent No.2 regarding issuance of NOC but received no reply.

9. The final interview for the post was scheduled on 31 st January 2018. In the absence of an NOC from the Respondents, the Petitioner could not have appeared for the final interview. In those circumstances, the Petitioner filed the present petition on 29th January 2018. On 30th January 2018, the following order was passed by this Court:

16. It is further pointed out that the application made by the Petitioner on 1 st January 2018 to his Commanding Officer („CO‟, 33 Squadron Air Force) seeking NOC to appear in the interview conducted by the IBPS for selection for the post of BPO was not recommended by the „CO‟, 33 Squadron Air Force and forwarded to Air Officer Commanding („AOC‟), 43Wing. The AOC, 43Wing also did not recommend the said application of the Petitioner and forwarded the same to the Southern Air Command („SAC‟). The Senior Personnel Staff Office („SPSO‟) of the SAC also did not recommend the Petitioner‟s application and forwarded to the Air Force Record Office (AFRO) in Subroto Park. It is stated that the AFRO was still considering the said application and, therefore, the prayer of the Petitioner was premature. On its part the IBPS has filed an affidavit pointing out that no relief has been claimed against it.

22. Thus it is seen that even according to the Respondents there is a three- stage process for obtaining NOC. The Petitioner falls in the category of W.P.(C) Nos. 868,3637, 6300 & 8189 of 2018 page 12 of 24 Airmen who had completed seven years of service and would be eligible for seeking permission to apply for Group „A‟ posts in Central /State Government and "equivalent post in PSUs and Government of India undertakings/Corporations." It is contended that it is mandatory for the Petitioner to have sought prior permission before applying for the said post and obtain an NOC not after he was called for interview but before attending it. Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Supreme Court on 7 th December 2017 in SLP (C) 16448 of 2017 (Union of India v. Corporal V.K. Verma) to the effect that even if a Court is not satisfied with the policy, if any modification has to be made therein it is for the Air Force to take a call and that "the Court ought not to substitute its opinion to that of the Air Force."

26. Having qualified in the written exam he was called for an interview on 8th November 2016. However, he appeared on 9th November 2016 as he was only granted leave for that day. Despite the fact that Respondents gave prior permission, they did not issue the NOC. Ultimately, the Petitioner was in the waiting list and could not be selected.

27. In July 2016 another advertisement was issued for the post of Probationary Officer in Bank of Maharashtra. The Petitioner again applied for permission which was granted on 18th August 2016. After qualifying the written exam the Petitioner was called for the interview by a letter dated 13th January 2017. The Petitioner applied for NOC which was declined. Without the NOC the Petitioner still appeared in the interview. He filed WP (C) 876 of 2017 praying for issuance of NOC. During the pendency of the writ petition Respondents issued two NOCs on 25th April and 2nd May 2017. However, since the NOCs were granted too late and the Petitioner could not qualify in the final result. As a result, WP (C) 876 of 2017 was disposed of by this Court on 17th May 2017.