The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that administrative inaction on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) request, when an employee qualifies for a new public sector position without conflict, violates principles of reasonable administrative conduct and Article 14 of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces that procedural fairness must govern employment transitions in government service.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manser Singh, applied for the post of Librarian Grade-III through the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board. At the time of application, he was not employed by the state. Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as a Constable in the Mewar Bheel Core, a state government force. While serving in this capacity, he cleared the written examination and was provisionally selected for the Librarian Grade-III position. His final appointment, however, was contingent upon submission of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his current employer, respondent No. 3.
Procedural History
- The petitioner submitted a formal application for NOC to the Commandant of Mewar Bheel Core on multiple occasions.
- No response was issued by the respondent despite repeated follow-ups.
- The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the inaction as arbitrary and violative of his right to equal opportunity.
- The matter was heard at the admission stage itself, with the Court noting the prolonged delay and lack of justification.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the Commandant to issue the NOC within a stipulated time, enabling him to complete the selection process for Librarian Grade-III without further delay.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employer can withhold a No Objection Certificate solely on the ground of concurrent employment, without demonstrating any conflict of interest, duty impairment, or violation of service rules.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on State of U.P. v. Raj Kumar and K. Sankaran v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue that the right to apply for and secure another government position is protected under Article 14 and Article 16. He emphasized that the petitioner was not holding a position of confidentiality or sensitivity, and there was no rule prohibiting dual employment in this context. The inaction, he contended, amounted to constructive denial and violated the principle of legitimate expectation.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a detailed counter-affidavit. The counsel for the respondents offered no substantive justification for the delay or refusal, merely stating that the matter was under internal review. No statutory provision or service rule was cited to support the withholding of the NOC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s employment and the absence of any rule prohibiting concurrent service in non-overlapping roles. It noted that the petitioner’s current position as Constable did not involve access to sensitive information or a conflict with the duties of a Librarian. The Court emphasized that administrative silence in the face of a legitimate request, particularly when no adverse impact is shown, cannot be sustained.
"The petitioner has not been found to be in violation of any service rule, nor has any prejudice to public interest been demonstrated. To withhold the NOC without reason is to deny the petitioner an opportunity secured through merit."
The Court rejected the notion that mere employment in one government post automatically disqualifies an individual from pursuing another, especially when the roles are distinct and non-conflicting. It held that the burden lies on the employer to justify refusal, not on the employee to prove entitlement. The Court further observed that the petitioner’s provisional selection was based on merit, and procedural delay without cause undermines the integrity of the recruitment process.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that administrative inaction on an NOC request, in the absence of any valid ground, violates Article 14 and the principle of legitimate expectation. The Court directed the Commandant to consider and issue the NOC within seven days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
NOC Denial Requires Justification
- Practitioners must now argue that any refusal of NOC must be supported by specific, documented grounds under service rules or public interest.
- Blanket denials based on employment status alone are legally unsustainable.
- Delay in responding to NOC applications may be treated as constructive refusal.
Merit-Based Transitions Are Protected
- Candidates who qualify for a new government position through open competition cannot be blocked by current employers without cause.
- This applies even if the new role is in a different department or cadre, provided there is no overlap in duties or confidentiality.
- The judgment reinforces that merit, not bureaucratic inertia, must govern public employment mobility.
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable
- Government departments must establish clear timelines and procedures for NOC processing.
- Failure to respond within a reasonable period invites judicial intervention under Article 226.
- Petitioners may now cite this judgment to seek writs against delayed or silent NOC responses in similar recruitment contexts.
