AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant O.A. is filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
“a)To declare the action of the Respondents in withholding, delaying and keeping pending the Applicant's NOC applications without any transparent policy, written order or reasonable justification as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
b)To declare that the action of the Respondents is contrary to DoPT O.M. No. 28011/1/2013-Estt(C) dated 23.12.2013;
c)To direct the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Applicant's NOC application dated 15.06.2026 submitted for AIIMS (CRE-5) Notice No.93/2026 dated 13-06-2026, specifically enabling the Applicant to claim eligible Age Relaxation as a Central Government Employee, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
d)To pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may Central Administrative Tribunaldeem fit and proper in the interests of justice.”
The matter was heard in detail on 02.09.2026. On that date, the Tribunal took note of its earlier interim order dated 07.07.2026, whereby the respondents were directed to issue NOC to the applicant, subject to the outcome of the O.A., so as to enable him to apply pursuant to AIIMS Notice No. 93/2026 dated 13.06.2026. The applicant, appearing in person, informed the Tribunal that he had secured 88th All India Rank in the selection process for the post of Cashier / Junior Accounts Officer. Vide Result Notification No. 245-13/2 dated 12.08.2026 issued by AIIMS, he had been called upon to participate in the preference-filling process scheduled from 27.08.2026 to 05.09.2026, to be followed by document verification. Despite the interim direction, the NOC continued to be withheld. By the impugned communication dated 16.07.2026, the Commandant, CAD, Pulgaon (Respondent No.3) had declined to recommend the NOC on the following grounds:
the application had bypassed the prescribed channel;
the applicant was involved in a CBI investigation pending at the Anti-Corruption Branch, Pune;
the 1952 Office Memorandum was attracted; and
the Depot was facing a staff deficiency of 36 MTS against an authorisation of 75.
The applicant placed on record the clarification issued by the CBI itself on 14.08.2026, which reads as under:
“It is hereby clarified that Shri Varikuppala Nagaraju is the complainant in the said case. In the instant matter, charge-Central Administrative Tribunalsheet has been filed against accused Sushanta Nahak, Hawaldar (Clerk) and Navin Kumar, Hawaldar (Clerk) of the Indian Army. Shri Varikuppala Nagaraju is not an accused, suspect, or subject of investigation in the case. His role is limited to that of complainant who initiated the proceedings and as a witness in the matter. No criminal proceedings or investigation are pending against him.”
In view of the urgency arising from the ongoing preference process under the Result Notification dated 12.08.2026 and the non-compliance with the interim order dated 07.07.2026, the Tribunal suo motu impleaded the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi as Respondent No. 4, directed the applicant to file the amended Memo of Parties, and issued Court Notice to AIIMS. It was further directed that the applicant shall be allowed to participate in the further process of choosing the Institute as an order of preference and in compliance of the Result Notification on a provisional basis, and that insistence on the ‘NOC’ by AIIMS was dispensed with till the next date of hearing, subject to the outcome of the O.A. Court Notice was also issued to the Commandant, CAD, Pulgaon (Respondent No. 3) to file an affidavit explaining why NOC was not being issued despite the CBI clarification, observing that the withholding of NOC did not appear to rest on logical reasoning as assigned in the communication dated 16.07.2026. Respondent No.3 was directed to appear in person or through Video Conferencing on the next date of hearing.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Brigadier Prashant Kumar (Commandant, Central Ammunition Depot, Pulgaon – Respondent No. 3) appeared in person and apprised this Tribunal that he had never refused NOC to the applicant. He submitted that the NOC had been withheld at that stage on the ground that the Central Administrative Tribunal applicant was stated to be involved in a criminal trial in a CBI matter. However, he agrees that the applicant is not an accused or suspect in the CBI matter but is only a complainant. He assured that he will re-visit the impugned communication/order and pass appropriate orders on the aspect of granting NOC to the applicant. In view of the assurance so given, Respondent No. 3 is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant’s request for NOC by re-visiting the impugned communication dated 16.07.2026, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
We appreciate the manner in which Brigadier Prashant Kumar appeared at the time of hearing, cooperated in the adjudication of the matter, and rendered valuable assistance to the Tribunal.
The O.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.s, if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.