IN THE HIGH COURT OF DE^.HI AT NEW DELHI 4799/2007. 6003/2007. 6273/2007. 627472007. 7000/2007. 7015/2007. 7153/2007. 7303/2007. 8811/2007. 8814/2007. u 9022/2007. 431/2008, IN THE MATTER OF : Sgt. Sachin Kumar Pravin ^_^pl.ArjunKumarMaurya Sgt. Sanjay Biswas Cpl S.K.Srivastava Ashish Srivastava Cpl Pardeep Kumar Sgt. N.S.Yadav Cpl. Muluk Raj Singh Cpl. Sanjay Kumar Sgt. K.B.Singh Cpl. Raj Kumar Corporal Satveer Singh Cpl. Sanjay Kumar Corporal R.S.Yadav Corporal A Mandal Corporal UPV Pratheepan '>! Coiporal Krishna KSR fr,orporalKamal Kumar ^ . Sgt. Jai Singh DATE OF HEARING: 30.01.2008 D^TE OFDECISION: 14.03.2008 Petitionerin Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in , Petitioner in . petitioner in Petitioner in Petitionerin Petitionerin Petitionerin Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitionerin Petitioner in Petitionerin Petitionerin Petitionerin WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. 6272/2007 244/2008 9612/2007 9650/2007 4798/2007 4799/2007 6003/2007 . 6273/2007 6274/2007 7000/2007 7015/2007 7153/2007 7303/2007 8811/2007 8814/2007 9022/2007 431/2008 540/2008 578/2008 Thru: Ms.Rekha Palli with lyjs.Punam Singh for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.244/2008, 6272-6274/2007. Mr.Baljit Singh for the petitioner in WP(C) No.9612/2007. Mr.A.K.Trivedi for the petitioner in WP(C) No.9650/2007, 7000/^007,7015/2007and 7303/2007. l^/|r.ManzoorAli Khap with Mr.D.K.Gargin WP(C) Nos. 4798-4799/2007. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Mrs.Prasanthi Prasad for the petitioner in WP(C)Nos. 7153/2007, 8811/2007, 8814/2007, 9022/2007, 540/08 and And WP(C)No.431/2008. Mr.Rajender Prasad for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6003/2007. Major K. Rameshfor tjie petitionerin WP(C)No.578/08. - Versus - Union of India & Ors. Respondents. ChiefofAir Staff& Ors ^Respondentsin WP(C)No.8811/07, WP(C)No.8814/07,WP(C)No.9022/07, WP(C)No.431/08,WP(C)No.540/08 AndWP(C)No.7153/07 Y Thru: Ms.Sonia Mathur for the respondent in 244/2008, 9612/2007, 4799/2007, 6003/2007,244/08, 431/08 and 6272-6274/2007. i^r.Jitendra Kr.Singh fpr respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 7015/2007. Mr.Sewa Rpm with Mr.R.K.Bachchanfor the respondent in WP(C) Nos. 9022/2007,540/08, 578/08. Mr.Rajeeve iviehrayvith Ivis.RachittaPriyanka for the respondent in \AifP(C) Nos.7000/2007, 7015/2007, 7153/2007,7303/^007,8811/2007and 8814/2007. Ivir.S. BhowmiGl<f^r counselfor respondentNo.6 in WP(C) No.4798/2007 and for respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.4799/2007. Ms.Saroj Bidawai for respondent in WP(C)No.9650/07 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whetherthejudgmentshouldbe reportedipthe Digest? \\ A.K. SIKRI, J. For orders see W.P.(C) No.6272 of 2007 entitled Sgt. Sachin Kumar Pravin Vs. Union of India & Others. (A.k. SIKRI) JUDGE March 14,2008. (J.M.MALIK) skk JUDGE f ( ] / 2— INTHE HIGH COURTOFDEl^HIAT NEW DELHI WP(a Nos. 6272/2007. 244/2008, 9612(2007, l^.^unnnT 4799/2007. 6003/2007. 6273/2007, 6274/2007, 7000/2007, 7015/2007 '•—^— ^^^ om VI onoo/onn"7 A'^i/'PnOR 7153/2007. 7303/2007. 8811/2007, 8814/2007, 9022/2007, 431/2008, 540/2008 and 578/2008. TN THE MATTER OF : Sgt. SachinKumarPravin CpLArjunKumar Maurya Sgt: Sanjay Biswas Cpl S.K.Srivastava .Ashish Srivastava •i^'Cpl Pardeep Kumar "Sgt. N.S.Yadav Cpl. Muluk Raj Singh Cpl. Sanjay Kumar ' Sgt. K.B^Singh Cpl. Raj Kumar CorporalSatveer Singh Cpl. Sanjay Kumar CorporalR.S.Yadav Corporal A Mandal • Corporal UPV Pratheepan CorporalKrishna KSR Corporal Kamal Kumar Sgt. Jai Singh DATE OF HEARING: 30.01.2008 DATE OF DECISION: 14.03.2008 Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in , Petitioner iri Petitioner in Petitioner in • Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No, WP(C) No. .WP(C).Nb. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. 6272/2007 244/2008 9612/2007 9650/2007 4798/2007 4799/2007 6003/2007 , 6273/2007 6274/2007 7000/2007 7015/2007 7153/2007 7303/2007 8811/2007 8814/2007 9022/2007 431/2008 540/2008 578/2008 Thro: Ms.Rekha Palli with Ivis.Punam Singh for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.244/2008, 6272-6274/2007. Mr.BaljjtSingh for the petitioner in WP{C) No.9612/2007. Mr.A.K.Trivedifor the petitioner in WP(C) No.9650/2007, 7000/^007, 7015/2007 and 7303/2007. Mr.Manzoor Ali Khap with Mr.D.K.Garg in WP(C) Nos. 4798-4799/2007. . Mrs.Prasanthi Prasad for the petitioner in WP(C)Nos. 7153/2007, 8811/2007, 8814/2007, 9022/2007, 540/08 and And WP(C)No.431/2008. Mr.RajenderPrasadfor tine petitionerin WP(C) No.6003/2007. Major K. Rqimeshfor tfie petitionerin WP(C)No.578/08. r Versus - UnionofIndia&Ors. ^ Respondents. ChiefofAir Staff&Ors ...... RespondentsinWP(C)No.8811/07, WP(G)No.8814/07,WP(C)No.9022/07, WP(C)No.431/08,WP(C)No.540/08 AndWP(C)No.7153/07 Thru: ivis.Sonia i^lathur for the respondent in 244/2008, 9612/2007, 4799/2007, 6003/2007,244/08, 431/08 and 6272-6274/2007. Mr.Jitendra Kr.Singhfpr respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. ' . 7015/2007. ivir.Sewa Ram with Mr.R.K.Bachchan for the respondent in WP(C) Nos. 9022/2007,540/08, 578/08. ' Mr.RajeeveMehra.yvithIvis.RachittaPriyankafor the respondent in \A/P{C) Nos.7000/2007, 7015/2007, 7153/2007, 7303/^007, 8811/2007 and 8814/2007. jvir.S. Bhowmicl<f^r counselfor respondentNo.6 in WP(C) No.4798/2007 and for respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.4799/2007. . Ms.Saroj Bidawalfor respondent in WP(C)No.9650/07 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.MALIK- 1. WhetherReportersof Localpapersmaybe allowedto seethe Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whetherthejudgmentshouldbe reportedipi the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. •. V- For orders see W.P.(C.)No.6272.of 2007 entitledSpt. Sachin Kumar Prf^vin Vs. Union of India & Others. . (A.: [C. SIKRI) March 14,2008. skk •-W" •V. JUDGE (J.M.MALIK) •judge IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI A •WP(C) Nos. 6272/2007. .244/2008: 9612/2007. 9650/2007. 4798/2007. 4799/2007. 6003/2007. 6273/2007. 6274/2007.. 7000/2007. 7015/2007. 7153/2007. 7303/2007. 8811/2007: 8814/2007. 9022/2007, 431/2008, .540/2008 and 578/2008. IN THE MATTER OF : Sgt. Sachin Kumar Pravin Cpl.Arjun Kumar Mauiya Sgt. Sanjay Biswas 'Cpl S.K.Srivastava Ashish Srivastava • Cpl Pardeep Kumar Sgt, N.S.Yadav Cpl.-Muluk Raj Singh Cpl. Sanjay Kumar Sgt. K.B.Singh Cpl. Raj Kumar Corporal Satveer Singh Cpl. Sanjay Kumar Coiporal R.S.Yadav Coiporal A Mandal Coiporal UPV Pratheepan Corporal Krishna KSR Corporal Kamal Kumar Sgt. Jai Singh Thru: DATE'OF HEARING: 30.01.2008 DATE OF DECISION WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. WP(C) No. Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in . Petitioner in Peititioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in Petitioner in ly .03.2008 6272/2007, 244/2008 9612/2007 9650/2007 , 4798/2007 , 4799/2007 , 6003/2007 ,6273/2007 6274/2007 7000/2007 7015/2007 7153/2007 7303/2007 8811/2007 8814/2007 9022/2007 . 431/2008 540/2008 578/2008 Ms.Rekha.Palli with Ms.Punam Singh for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos.244/2008, 6272-6274/2007. Mr.Baijlt Singh for the petitioner in WP(C) No.9612/2007. jvir.A.K.Trivedi for the petitioner in WP(C) No.9650/2007, 7000/2007., 7015/2007 and 7303/2007. Ivir.Manzoor Ali.Khan with Mr.D.K.Garg in WP(C) Nos. 4798-4799/2007. jvirs.Prasanthi Prasad for the petitioner in WP(C)Nos. 7153/2007, 8811/2007, 8814/2Q07, 9022/2007, 540/08 and WP[C)No.6272 of 2.007 Page 1 And WP(C)No..431/2008. Mr.RajenderPrasadfor the petitionerin WP(C) No.6003/2007. " . jviajorK. Rameshfor ttie petitioner in WP{C)No.578/08. - Versus - Union of India & Ors. • • Respondents.- ChiefofAirStaff& Ors Respondentsin WP(C)No.8811/07, WP(C)No.8814/07,WP(C)No.9022/07, WP(C)No.431/08,WP(C)No.540/08 AndWP(C)No.7153/07 Thru: Ms.Sonia IMatiiur for tine respondent in 244/2008, 9612/2007, 4799/2007, 6003/2007,244/08, 431/08 and . . 6272-6274/2007. Mr.Jitendra Kr.Singli for respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. . 7015/2007. Mr.Sewa Rann witl^ Ivir.R.K.Baciiclian forthe ^ • respondent in WP(C) Nos. 9022/2007,540/08, 578/08. IVjr.Rajeeve ivjehra with Ms.Rachitta Priyahka for the respondent in WP(C) Nos.7000/2007, 7015/2007, 7153/2007, 7303/2007, 8811/2007 and 8814/2007.., jvlr.S. Bhowmicl< for counsel for respondent No.6 in WP(C) No.4798/2007 and for respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.4799/2007., jvis.Saroj Bidawal for respondent in WP(C)No.9650/07 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.MALIK 1. WhetherReporters of Local papers may.be allowedto see the Judgment? '2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? V 3. Whetherthejudgmentshouldbe reportedin the Digest? , . WP[C]No.6272of2007 ' Page 2 1^ A.K.SIKRI,J. . • ; ^ - The petitioners in all these writ petitions are Airmen with the Indian Air Force - either working in the capacity of Sergeant or Corporal. They have filed these petitions seeking identical relief. After some years of service in the Air Force they want to be relieved from Air Force service on the ground that they have -been appointed for civil post in different organizations which are Central Government/State Government or Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). Their plea ' is that on their appointment to' civil post iit the Central Government/State Government/ PSUs they are entitled to 'No Objection Certificate'(NOC) to enable them to join the said civil post for which they are selected. They.had made requests for issuance of NOC, but the respondents have turned down all such. In these circumstances,the reliefprayedfor is to quash the rejectionordersand direct the respondentsto issueNOC for civilpostfor whichthey have been selected. In view of the commonalityof the factual position operating in all these cases which are governedby identicalRules and Regulations,we had heard these petitionstogether. WritPetition(Civil)No.6272of 2007 was treatedas lead case. Therefore,fOr the sake of convenience,we may start our discussionwhile takingnote ofthe facts ofthis writpetition. . , WP[C]No.6272 of2007 n v Page 3 The petitionerin this case is servingas aimianinthe IndianAir F'orce. . •, He was enrolled as a Radio Fitter on 26.10.1993 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Coiporaland thereafter Sergeant. On 22.9.2006,the petitionerapplied for the post of SectionOfficer(Audit)which is a civil post under the Government of India. Selectionfor this post is conductedthrough Staff SelectionCommission (SSC). The petitioner submitted his applicationto the SSC throtigh the present employer,namely, Indian Air Force. His applicationwas duly forwarded by his •Unit to the SSC on 22.9.2006.The petitionerappearedin the written examination . and successfully cleared the same. Thereafter, he was to appear in the interview -v. which was scheduled for. 14.6.2007. He applied for NOC to appear in the said ' interview on 8.-6.2007. His superior authorities forwarded his application to the Competent Authority in the Air Force for giving NOC. On 14.6.2007 the petitioner,appeared in the interview by which time NOC had not been issued." Later, vide order dated 28.6.2007 the Competent Authority rejected his request and did not issue the NOC. Since the petitioner had appeared in the interview held on 14.6.2007,he was consideredby the SSC and has been selected for the post of . SectionOfficer(Audit). However,he is not able to jointhepost for want of NOC. 'v • . • . • In thesecircumstances,he has approachedthis Courtwith the followingprayers; A. "Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order/direction directing.Respondents to issue a 'No Objection • . Certificate (NOG)' for Civil post i.e. Section Officer (Audit) in WPCC]No.6272of2007 - • p^gg4 staff Selection Commission and for quashing the decision.of Respondent No.3 declining to grant NOC to the Petitioner for the Civil Post of Section Officer (Audit). B. Issue a writ of certiorari. quashing the - decision of the Respondent No.3 declining to grant NOC to the Petitioner for .the post of Section Officer (audit). C. Pass any other appropriate qrder/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper". . Under what circumstances such an NOC can be granted br rejected would be appreciatedbetter when we glancethroughthe relevantprovisionson the subject. Thus we proceed to take note of the extant Rules: At the time of entry into Indian Air Force service, such persons like the petitionerherein,had givensei-vicebond as per which they had agreedto serve the Air Force for a period of20 years. Normally,therefore,these petitionersare requiredto completetheirtenureof20 years with the IndianAir Force. However, the respondentIndian Air Force has framed a Policy as per which NOC can be given afterrendering7years of serviceby an airman in case he gets selectedin a civilpostunderCentralGovernment/StateGovemment/PSUssubjectto fulfillment of certain conditions-mentioned in the Policy. The Policy in question is dated r-' _ 9.5.2003whichhas been amendedfrom time to time. WP[C)No.6272 of2007 Pages 2. O POLICY DATED 9.5.2003. ' ; As per Policy dated 9.5.2003, Airmen/NCs (E) who have completed 07 years of their engagement including training period are pemiitted to apply for - civil posts under Central Government/State Government/PSUs. Procedure under which such applications are to be processed, is also stated in the said Policy to which we shall advert to soon after taking note of certain other factors contained in the Policy. Para-6 of this Policy states that NOC has to be issued by the Air Headquarters (Directorate of Personnel and Administration)in the prescribed format"on case to case basis, subjectto serviceexigenciesand after the approval., by ACAS (PA &C)". Thus, each case is to be.consideredon its own merit in order to see whetherNOC is to be issuedin aparticularcase or not. Whilebestowingits consideration,the guidingprinciplebeforethe CompetentAuthoritywould b6 "the serviceexigencies". Para-6 further mentionsthat issuanceof NOC is aprivilege and cannot be claimed as a matter of right within the engagementperiod of 20 • years, as is clearfrom its reading: "6. NOC will be issued by Air Headquarters »./. (Directorate of Personnel & Administration),as per format given at Appendix to this AFO on case by case basis, subjectto serviceexigenciesand after approvalby ACAS (PA &C). Issuance of NOC is a privilegeand cannot be claimed as a matter of right within the - engagementperiod of 20 years. Request for issue of WP[C)No.6272of2007 Page 6 NOC is to be made when an Airman/NC (E) fulfills all eligibility conditions and his application is forwarded to the employer through ' respective Command Headquarters. Once the NOC is issued, it is to be attached either as a part of the application for the post or presented at the time of interview, as per the requirement of the employer. No provisional or conditional NOC will be issued by the Station/Unit." The procedure, to which we now advert to, is specified in the said Policy as under: The applicationsof those eligibleairmenetc (i.e. who have completed J 07 years oftheir engagement)desirousof applyingcivil post is to be forwardedto their respectiveCommand Headquartersthrough Station/UnitCommanders. The Command Headquarterhas to vet these applicationsand on satisfyingthat the concernedcandidatefulfilsthe eligibilityconditions,the CommandHeadquarteris to forwardthe applicationto the concernedDepartment/employer. As mentioned above, these applicationshave to be for those civil posts which are under Central Govermnent/StateGovernment/PSUs. Certain \ . categonesof Airmen/NCsare not entitledto apply, as mentionedin para-4ofthe Policy. However,we can avoid detailsofthese personsas admittedlynone ofthe petitioners are covered by such cases, as 'mentioned in para-4. Once this '. WP(C]No:6272 of 2007 Page 7 •applicationis forwarded to the Command Headquarter,the concerned• Airman is allowed to appear in the written test for the post for which he has applied. The ^ . Policy further states that as arid when he qualifies for the interview, the Air Headquarterhas to approachdirectlyby the Stationfor issue of NOC which is to be obtained from Air Headquarter (Directorateof Persomiel and Administration) before attending the interview, .irrespective of the fact whether NOC has been asked for by the prospectiveDepartmentor not. It is further mentionedthat NOC will not be issued once the interview is over or the offer letter has been received. The Policy also stipulates that those Airmen etc. who are selected for civil posts after completion of 07 years of service should apply for discharge and accept the appointment only after discharge is approved by the .Competent Authority at Air Headquarters. POLICY DATED 21.3.2007. There was an amendment in the Policy and revised Policy was introducedvide'Circulardated 21.3.2007. In this Pohcy,it is, interalia, noted that there was bulge' at the Sergeantlevel which was affectingthe airmen cadre and its detrimentaleffect on the cadre on the whole was a well Icnown fact. It further notesthat even with the recentincreasein the establishmentsanctionedstrengthby the GovermTientwhich is to be actuallyadded in phases the strengthofSergeant WP[C)No.6272of2007 ^ ^ g would still remain considerablyabove the establishment. This bulge has come about due to two main factors noted in this policy: (a) "A liberal, welfare-oriented policy regarding extensions beyond the term of Regular Engagement (RE) of 20 years, which awards extensions based on the employment needs of the individual with scant emphasis on cadre requirements beyond ensuring that the individual has the basis attributes regarding medical category and disciplinary benchmarks. • , (b) Promotion to the rank of Sgt at 13.5 years of service,- regardless of est vacancies". The Policy thereafter,•in para-3, takes note of measures which are being taken to reduce this suiplus which had assumed significant proportions. Apart from taking proactive measures so as to achieve noticeable result with meaningful time frame as mentioned in para-3, paras 4 and 5 of the said, policy deal with "No Objection Certificates for Civil Employment and Discharge". We reproduce these paras in entirety: 3. The present Sgt-level bulge is of significant • proportions, and would need firm, proactive measures so as to achieve noticeable results within meaningful time frames. The following measures are being taken for implementation:- (a) Trade and rank-wise, (above Sgt level)' cadre requirements would be drawn and continuously updated. This would form the basic benchmark for the ideal' cadre for the AF, •on which cadre management strategy, would be based. (b) The airmen would indicate their willingness or otherwise for extension beyond RE two year prior to RE expiry i.e. on completion of year of , service starting from PBOR who are completing WP[C)No.6272of2007• , Paggg 18 years in Sep .07 and whose RE expiry is Sep 2009. To help the PBOR to. decide on willingness or' otherwise for extension of term of engagement, a rough estimate of vacancies (rank wise and trade wise) likely to arise in the next three years would also be published every year. (c) A BOO would be convened at AFRO twice a year to identify shortfalls In . each' rank trade wise. Vacancies to be filled by extensions would then be worked put on actual requirements, taking into consideration any recently approved additional vacancies and also the manpower allotted to newly formed units from within the existing strength. The BOO would consider airmen who have completed 18 years of service and are willing for extension. The extension panel would be published indicating the list of airmen considered by the BOO. The bi-annual BOO would have a member each from the Adm Branch, D Trg and DMP.• The critical requirements to hold HR in a particular trade, in a fleet or for any .specialized training imparted would be provided by Dte of MP/Specialist Dte for consideration of the' Board of Officers. The applications for extension would be arranged into a trade-wise and rank-wise merit list, and the available vacancies allotted as'per merit. I (d). Extensions vyould be awarded in a controlled and selective manner, where merit would be the key factor (compassionate cases would continue to be dealt with by this HQ). A trade-wise list of airmen who would be granted extension subject to their medical fitness would be'published. The cases of airmen recommended for extension by BOO'but •not meeting the medical standards would be considered by a condonation board. 4. "Presently airmen are granted ..'No Objection Certificate' for applyingfor Civil Posts and subsequently permitted to seek discharge after seven years of service in case they get employment in Central Govt/State Govt/PSUs. The job could be for any Gp A, B, C and even a Gp D post. This results in some PBOR WP(C]No.6272 of2007 Page 10 considering the Air Force as only a stepping stone for another career.- Even though the number of. such , individuals may not be alarming, the image of the lAF should also be considered. While an .individual could be- permitted to seek release in case he was offered a job which ensured better prospects/career enhancement, allowing him to leave for low paid jobs like LDC/Primary school teacher etc. would be retrograde.step, especially after spending a considerable amount of money on' his training; thus this does not seem advisable, though this is the present situation. . ' 5. In view of the above, it has now been decided that airmen shall be allowed to apply for appointment to Civil Central Govt/State Govt/PSU posts carrying higher pay scales only. However, such a restriction will not be applicable to those PBOR who have completed 15 years of service, subject to cadre requirements at that time. NOC for applying for civil posts failing in the above categories would continue to be issued by Air HQ with the- overriding condition being the overall cadre requirement in . a particular rank/trade. Station/Unit administration would issue l\10C to PHOR who have completed 18 years of' service and have submitted unwillingness to extend their service or have not been- cleared for grant of extension. NOC to PBOR unwillingor not cleared for extension may be granted by the Station/Unit administration for employment by any agency, including the' private sector. Airmen granted such NOCs will be allowedto seek discharge in case they are selected for employment in Govt enterprises/PSUs/PrivateSector as the case may b e. PBOR • having undergone, ' specialist training/course/deputation abroad would be allowed discharge after completion of their obligatoryperiod, if any . Para 6 ofthe Policydeals with"PreReleaseCourses'. WP[C}No;6272 of2007 ^ Page 11 Paras 7 and 8 under the caption 'Conclusion' are also relevant for our • ' • I purposes and, therefore, it would be in the fitness of things to extract these paras as well: : • 7. "A holistic view of cadre management has been tal<en by granting controlled and selective extension of service to airmen based on the overall cadre requirement as well as a more relaxed policy regarding the welfare aspect relating to allqwing discharges on' compassionate grounds and those seeking alternate careers in civil life. All airmen who are denied extension would be given preference for PRC courses so as to better prepare them for civil life, as well as permitting the issues of NOCs for any job including the Private Sector. 8. This policy on extension and discharge of airmen based on cadre requirement will come into effect from Sep 09- and necessary amendments would be incorporated in the relevant HRPs in due course. Your HQs are requested to disseminate the same to all Stations/Units under your Command". > • The petitionersemphasizedthat there is an acceptanceof the fact that there is a bulge' at Sergeantlevel. It is even affectingthe AirmenCadre and is detiimentalto the cadre. In such circumstancesthe.respondentshave to be liberal in gianting discha,rge to those airmen who applied for the same and fulfill the conditionslaid down in the Policy. It is also sought to argue that many other officerssimilarlysituatedare issued similarNOC wiiose names are giveii in die petitions. WP[C]No.6272 of2007 Page 12 • AIR FORCE ORDER DATED 1.6.2007 This was followed by Air Force Order No.4 of 2007 issued by Air ChiefMarshalon 1.6.2007giving in detailthe guidelineswhich are to be followed while consideringapplicationsfor discharge. Para-1 thereofstipulates that the i concernedapplicantwouldbe permittedto apply"forcivilpostunderCentral/State Governments in Group A and B (Gazetted) and equivalent posts in PSUs" •w' including Para-Military Forces. Thus as per this the civil post to which such airmen apply should be in Group-A or Group-B (Gazetted) or equivalentpost in PSUs. 'This restriction is not, however, applicable to those airmen who have completed 15 years of service. Thus it applies to those officers.who have rendered more than 7 years of sei-vice but less than 15 years of service. All these officers are in this category who have not completed 15 years of service. Para-8 of the Circular dated 1.6.2007 further mentions that NOC is to be obtainedfrom Air Headquarters(Directorateof Personneland Administration) in respectof airmen and respectiveCommandHeadquarterin respectof NCS(E). It also stipulatesthatNOC shallnot be issuedifthe applicationfor the post has not WP[C]Nb.6272of2007 . ' Page 13 contained in Policy dated 9.5.2003 which would be applicable. More so, when new Policy dated 1.6.2007 is not made retrospective. 2. Oncepermission is given to apply for the post, NOC should not normallybe refused. It was argued that such permission is given after satisfying that a particular applicant fulfilled all the conditionsand also was entitled to apply for the job and exigencies of service demanded giving him discharge on being selected. On^the strength of such permission to apply for the post, when the applicant appears in the written test, qualify the -same and thereafter qualify the interview as well and get selected, at that stage he cannot be told that NOC would ndt be issued. 3. The purpose of the policy was to reduce the 'bulge' at sergeant level. It was for this reason that permissionwas given to seek dischargeonly when the candidate gets selected in civil post under the Government so that•his services are utilized by another agency of the Government or under the control of the Governmenti.e. PSUs. Therefore,such a Policy should be • liberally construed. 4. The main reason for giving dischargeafter 07 years of service was that at this periodoftime