AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
The short issue involved in this case relates to non-issuance of No Objection Certification (NOC) by the respondents to the applicant for taking outside employment, vide letter Nos. CBSE/HQ/Pers-A/2021/4141 dated 13.12.2021 and CBSE/HQ/Pers-A/2022/922 dated 03.03.2022. Aggrieved of the said action of the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs :-
“a)Quash the decision communicated vide letter nos. CBSE/HQ/Pers-A/2021/4141 dated 13.12.2021 and CBSE/HQ/Pers-A/2022/922 dated 03.03.2022. Annexure-A/1 and Annexure-A/2 ;
b)direct the respondent to issue NOC immediately;
c)direct the respondent to issue vigilance clearance, Integrity certificate, Statement of Major-Minor penalties imposed and experience certificate by 11/03/2022 to facilitate the applicant in appearing for interview in NIOS on 15.03.2022;
d)Pass other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working with the respondents since 2010, and at present he is posted as Joint Secretary under the respondent Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). In October, 2021, the applicant applied for the post of Director (Evaluation) in National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), for which he sought issuance of NOC, which was one of the requirement to apply.
Mr. Brijender Singh Dhull, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in accordance with the consolidated instructions issued by Government of India, vide Office memorandum No. 28011/1/2013-Estt (C) dated 23.12.2013, the applicant is entitled to NOC for taking outside employment. However, the respondents turned down the request of the applicant to apply for the post of Director by denying NOC to him, without giving any valid reasons. It is further submitted that the applicant again applied for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision as well as for issuance of NOC, vide letter dated 21.01.2022, but to no avail. It is further submitted that the respondents have forwarded applications of others seeking outside employment in the past, but the respondents did not accede to his request.
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the aforesaid act of the respondents being arbitrary, against the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence the present OA.
Today, at the outset, Mr. Anil Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the applicant is an extraordinary officer, holding a very crucial post of Joint Secretary in CBSE and looking after the result of class Xth and XIIth students and at this juncture, it is not possible for the respondents to relieve him of his duties. He further contends that the work of the department will suffer, if he is relieved.
In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon DoPT’s OM No. 28020/1/2010-Estt(C) dated December, 2013. The excerpt of the said OM reads as under :-
“c)When once the Administrative Authority has forwarded an application, it is mandatory that the Government employee concerned should be released to take up the new appointment. However, where subsequent to the forwarding of the application, but before selection if exceptional circumstances arise in which it may no be possible to release the official, the fact should be communicated to the Commission as well as to the official concerned. The decision not to release an official should be taken only where the circumstances referred to above are really exceptional.”
We have heard Mr. Brijender Singh Dhull, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents at the admission stage itself. We have also examined the records and pleadings.
Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the respondents cannot stop the applicant from applying for an outside employment for betterment of his service unless there is anything adverse against the applicant, such as pendency of criminal case, disciplinary proceedings and vigilance action etc. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is neither any disciplinary proceedings nor criminal case or vigilance action is pending against the applicant, which fact has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondents.
In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice, the OA is allowed and consequently, the impugned rejection orders dated 13.12.2021 and 03.03.2022 stand set aside. The respondents are directed to issue NOC by Monday i.e., 14.03.2022 to the applicant with regard to his application dated 18.10.2021, as the applicant’s interview is scheduled to be held on 15.03.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.