Telasula Anil Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of orders dated 26.12.2023 and 13.03.2023 whereby he has been denied ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) for seeking job outside Coast Guard.

2. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, petitioner joined Indian Coast Guard as Yantrik on 20.08.2014. He was put on probation for a period of two years. In the year 2016, he was confirmed as Yantrik. Thereafter, petitioner got promoted to the rank ‘Sahayak Engineer’ on 01.01.2022.

3. Respondent No. 5 i.e. M/s Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. (GRSE), a Government of India Undertaking functional under the Ministry of Defence, notified vacancies for various disciplines, including for the post of Supervisor (S-4 Grade).

4. The above advertisement was hosted by Coast Guard on its website i.e. BUVIK so as to facilitate serving and ex-employees to apply for the same. Intra Office Correspondence dated 17.11.2022 also indicated that ‘No Objection Certificate’ would be processed subsequently.

5. In response thereto, petitioner applied for the post of Supervisor through proper channel. He forwarded his request to GRSE Ltd. through his Commanding Officer who recommended such application. He thus applied for said post only after receiving due prior permission from the Coast Guard as is evident from letters dated 30.11.2022 and 01.12.2022.

6. Petitioner appeared in the written examination and cleared the same.

7. He was then directed to appear in the Trade Test/Interview on 07.02.2023. His Commanding Officer, again, permitted him to appear in the interview. However, to his utter shock, he received an e-mail on 30.01.2023 from respondents informing that his request for NOC had not been approved as he was not a confirmed employee. Along with such email, he was served with first impugned order dated 26.12.2022. NOC was declined relying upon Para-1(c) of Coast Guard Policy dated 03.08.2017.

8. Petitioner, feeling aggrieved, made a representation which was rejected by respondents on 13.03.2023 (second impugned order) reiterating that he was not a confirmed employee.

9. Petitioner eventually got provisional appointment letter from Respondent No. 5 whereby he was directed to report for joining on or before 15.03.2023 with further direction to submit his credentials along with NOC.

10. The grievance of petitioner is that since he was already a confirmed employee of India Coast Guard and participated in the recruitment process with due permission, there was no reason for denial of NOC to him.

11. It is in the aforesaid premise that he has challenged the impugned orders.

12. According to the petitioner, he had participated in the recruitment process with due permission and through proper channel at every stage and in such a situation, subsequent refusal of grant of NOC is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. According to him, respondents are also unjustified in placing reliance upon Para-1(c) of the Policy as he is already a confirmed employee. He contends that he had joined as Yantrik in the year 2014 and completed his probation and was confirmed way back in the year 2016. Mere fact that he was on probation on a promotional post would not mean anything significant in the present context. It is contended that there was no other reason for denial of ‘No Objection Certificate’. It is thus prayed that respondents be directed to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ in a time-bound manner so as to enable him to join M/s GRSE.

13. All such contentions have been resisted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6.

14. It is contended by them that the question of grant of NOC is within the discretion of the competent authority under Rule 27(2) of Coast Guard (General) Rules 1986 and no one has absolute right or discretion to leave the Coast Guard as per his own whims and fancies and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is also claimed that at the relevant time, petitioner was though promoted to the rank of ‘Sahayak Engineer (Radio)’ but he continued to be on probation on such promotional post at the relevant time and, therefore, NOC was rightly refused as NOC could not have been given to any employee who was under probation or whose confirmation was pending. During the course of arguments, it was also, additionally, contended that petitioner was currently at the Pay Level-VI whereas he had applied for a job of lower pay level i.e. Pay Level-IV and as per their policy, post applied for should be in higher pay level for the purpose of grant of NOC and since the petitioner had applied for a post, which was in lower pay level than the current pay level, therefore, he was, even otherwise, not entitled to NOC. It is also argued that petitioner had undergone promotion-linked professional enhancement course and in such a situation, he cannot complain of any hardship. It is also contended that mere promulgation of any advertisement through Intra Office Correspondence and publication on BUVIK website cannot be construed as permission from the competent authority and, thus, it is prayed that Writ Petition may be dismissed.

15. Respondent No. 5 i.e. M/s GRSE Ltd. has also filed counter affidavit. It is, inter alia, stated therein that there is urgent requirement of supervisor in GRSE Ltd. and the delay was causing hardship to them.