Category,Description of Post,Eligibility Criteria,"Competent Authority
to issue NOC","Format
Of  NOC
Category-I,"Group A/I and
GroupB/II Gazetted
posts through UPSC
and State Public
Service Commission
Only (Recruitment
advertisement must
clearly mention the
Group of the Post)","a) Airmen with
minimum Skill Grade A
and seven years of
service.
b) NCs(E) irrespective of
length of service.","AOC, AFRO",Appendix A
Category-II,"Any civil post  in
Govt/PSU/Private
Sector","Airmen in the last year of
residual    service
prior to expiry of their
initial Regular
Engagement
(RE)/Extended    Â
RE
provided they   Â
have submitted
unwillingness/denied
further extension   of
 service",AOC/Stn Cdr/CO#,Appendix B
band-2.,,,,
XX XXÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â XX XX,,,,
                                                 XX XX,,,,
d. That moreover, the Respondent/ Original Applicant herein even applied against the 65th Combined Competitive Examination issued by the BPS having the",,,,
same recruitment/selection process as indicated above and ide result dated 0710.2021 has even been selected for the post of Rural Development Officer. Now,Â",,,,
on bare perusal of the aforesaid RTI reply, the said post despite being in level-7 has been categorized as a Gazetted post.",,,,
e.  That keeping in the view the above, the Respondent/ Original Applicant herein would like to mention that the selected post, i.e. Supply Inspector uponÂ",,,,
which 0.11 No. 2716/2021  was judiciously adjudicated and the post upon  which the Respondent/ Original Applicant has been,,,,
subsequently selected against 65th advertisement, both of such posts carries level 7 pay scale, being a Group 'B' post however, only the latter has been",,,,
specifically mentioned as Gazetted whereas in the former there is no categorization.  That being the position, one cannot draw a fictitious distinction between",,,,
a Gazetted or a non-Gazetted post but rather it depends upon the pay level that deserves to be a criteria for categorization of posts in such scenario.,,,,
From the aforesaid, it is clear that in the advertisement nowhere was it mentioned that the post advertised was aÂ",,,,
Group A Gazetted post or non-gazetted post. It was only indicated that the post of Supply Inspector in the Consumer Food and Department carried,,,,
the pay scale in Level-7 as per the 7th CPC i.e. the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in Pay Band II. The respondent Sgt,,,,
Kuldeep Kumar Vibhuti has also brought on record the information received by him under the Right to Information Act vide Annexure R3 and,,,,
other documents available at page 43, wherein it is seen that the Bihar PSC has classified the post in various categories. At SI. No. 1, the post of",,,,
Police Deputy Superintendent in Bihar Police Service has been classified as a Gazetted post. Similarly, at SI. No. 13 of this document, the post of",,,,
Supply Inspector has been classified in Level 7. Likewise, in SI. No. 14, the post of Labour Rehabilitation Officer is classifiedÂ",,,,
in Level 7, whereas at SI. No. 10, the post of Additional District Transport Officer is classified as a Gazetted post and in bracket it is",,,,
mentioned that it is a Level 7 post. Similarly, at SI. No. 11, the post of City Executive Officer is classified as a Gazetted post in Level 7 and at SI. No.",,,,
12, the post of Rural Development Officer is also classified as a Gazetted post in Level 7. That being so, it is clear from Annexure R2Â",,,,
issued by the competent authority under the Right to Information Act on 14.02.2022 that the competitive examination for selection was held,,,,
for various posts and that the posts are classified as Gazetted/non-Gazetted with a particular pay level or pay band. Similarly, in Annexure R2 at page",,,,
46 filed by the respondent herein, Sgt Ku!deep Kumar Vibhuti, which is a translated version of Annexure R2, the post of Supply Inspector is shown in",,,,
Level 7, whereas the post of Rural Development Officer is shown as a Gazetted post in Level 7. It is, therefore, clear that",,,,
the post for which the applicant was selected viz. Supply Inspector was a non-Gazetted post in Level 7 and he had sought NOC for joining on that,,,,
post.,,,,
6. The statutory order governing grant of NOC to join public sector undertaking or Government Department i.e. AFO No.33 of 2017 lays down,,,,
eligibility criteria under Clause 6 and as per this criterion, Airmen are eligible to apply for civil posts/services with prior permission from the competent",,,,
Air Force authority and in the categories for which they can be appointed, it is clearly stipulated that they are eligible to seekÂ",,,,
NOC for appointment to Category I posts i.e. Group Al or Group B2 Gazetted posts through UPSC and State PSC.,,,,
7. On going through the original records of the case i.e. 0.A No.2716 of 2021, we find that in Para 2 of the counter affidavit filed by the",,,,
respondents, it has been clearly stated that the applicant in the 0.A   Sgt Kuldeep Kumar Vibhuti, in blatant disregard to the Rules",,,,
and Regulations, appeared for the interview and managed to get selected for a Group B post carrying the pay scale of Rs.44900-142400, a Pay",,,,
Level 7 post, through the Bihar PSC, which is not a Group B Gazetted post and, therefore, rightly the NOC was denied to him. ThereÂ",,,,
being a specific averment in the counter affidavit that AFO  No. 33  of 2017  clearly  lays down  theÂ,,,,
criteria  and parameters under which NOC can be granted, in our considered view, this Tribunal has committed an error which is apparent on",,,,
the face of record in giving direction to issue NOC to the respondent herein, contrary to the mandate of AFO No. 33 of",,,,
2017.,,,,
8. With regard to the present respondent, as the direction was without taking note of the averments made in the counter",,,,
affidavit filed by the respondents in the 0.A, so also the requirement of AFO No. 33 of 2017, an airman can be permitted to join only a Group B",,,,
Gazetted post and as the  respondent was appointed as a Supply Inspector in Pay Level 7, which is a non-Gazetted post, we are of the considered",,,,
view that the applicants herein are right in contending that there is an error apparent on the face of the record while disposing of theÂ,,,,
O.A. Even though, as directed by us, the respondents had filed a detailed counter affidavit and tried to indicate that based on the pay",,,,
scale, which is in Pay Level-7 his appointment should be approved, but once the documents available on record pertaining to",,,,
the advertisement and the post in question clearly indicate that even if the post is in Pay Level-7, once it is found to be a non-Gazetted post, the",,,,
requirement of AFO being not fulfilled, contrary to the requirement of the AFO, we cannot issue any direction to grant NOC to the respondent herein.",,,,
9. Before  parting,  we  may indicate that during the course of hearing, Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the",,,,
respondent in the R.A invited our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bikram Singh v, Union of India",,,,
and others reported in (2011) SCC Online Delhi 2278 (Annexure R4) to contend that when the pay band is identical and the pay level is also,,,,
same, NOC can be granted. On going through the said decision, we find that it pertains to seeking selection and appointment as Specialist",,,,
Officer-PIG-Scale 1 to various banks and that the issue of granting NOC contrary to the AFO, particularly the post being categorised as aÂ",,,,
Gazetted or Non-Gazetted post, did not arise. There the question was with regard to appointment to a post carrying a particular pay",,,,
scale   and  the  issue  was  decided  in  the  backdrop of the facts and circumstances of that case and,",,,,
therefore, cannot be applied to the facts and  circumstances of the present case where there is specific violation of the requirement of",,,,
AFO No.33 of 2017.,,,,
10. Accordingly, there being an error apparent on the face of record, we allow the R.A, recall the order passed by us in 0.A No. 2716 of 2021",,,,
dated 23.03.2022 so far as it relates to Sgt Kuldeep Kumar Vibhuti and hold that as the respondent has been selected to a post which is not a Gazetted,,,,
post and as the NOC claimed by him is contrary to AFO No.33 of 2017, 0.A No. 2716 of 2021 is dismissed,",,,,
11. In view of the above finding, M.A No. 1000 of 2022, which has been filed for execution of the order dated 23.03.2022 in 0.A No. 2716 of 2021,",,,,
is also dismissed as the reliefs granted in the said 0.A stand withdrawn and the 0.A has been dismissed by this order.,,,,
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands closed.",,,,
Pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of June, 202.",,,,
