The High Court of Uttarakhand reaffirmed that only the statutory appointing authority, as defined by recruitment rules, is empowered to decide on issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for Assistant Teachers; executive instructions from superior administrative officers that curtail this discretion are ultra vires and cannot override statutory authority. This decision follows and clarifies existing precedent, is binding within Uttarakhand, and offers persuasive value for similar statutory appointments in other sectors.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPSS/1484/2024 of ARVIND KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND CNR UKHC010122262024 |
| Date of Registration | 05-08-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Clarifies and follows Division Bench precedent in WPSB No. 308 of 2024 |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the Director (School Education) can issue circulars restraining District Education Officers from granting NOC to Assistant Teachers despite recruitment rules vesting this power with the appointing authority. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The statutory appointing authority as per recruitment rules alone has the competence to decide whether to grant an NOC to Assistant Teachers. Executive circulars from superior officers (here, Director, School Education) that restrict this power are outside statutory rules (dehors rules) and cannot prevail over them. Therefore, the impugned circular is set aside to the extent it curtails the power of the District Education Officer, who must decide NOC requests on a case-to-case basis as per law. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in WPSB No. 308 of 2024 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle that employer consents are not mandatory rights; NOC is discretionary; only the designated authority under recruitment rules holds such discretion; higher administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers (District cadre) in 2022 and sought to reapply for the post in other districts; a 27.07.2024 Director’s circular prevented District Education Officers from granting NOCs, which was challenged; the Director is not the appointing authority per rules. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and administrative authorities in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and public sector recruiters relying on statutory recruitment rules |
| Follows | Division Bench, High Court of Uttarakhand, WPSB No. 308 of 2024 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that only the appointing authority designated by statutory recruitment rules can decide upon NOC requests for government employees.
- Executive instructions by superior officials that override or curtail powers vested in statutory authorities are legally unsustainable.
- Lawyers representing service candidates or government authorities should carefully check if an impugned administrative order is supported by the relevant statutory rules.
- After this judgment, District Education Officers in Uttarakhand must consider NOC requests on their own merit and are not bound by blanket prohibitions issued by non-appointing authorities.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the power of the Director (Elementary Education), referencing the recruitment rules that categorize the District Education Officer as the appointing authority for Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School posts.
- It was noted that, under service law, only the authority designated by statute or statutory rules can exercise discretion to grant or deny an NOC.
- By relying on the Division Bench judgment in WPSB No. 308 of 2024, the court established that while employers have discretion to grant or refuse NOCs, this discretion must be exercised by the proper authority per rules.
- The Director’s circular was declared ultra vires because it exceeded authority conferred by law, interfering with powers reserved for the District Education Officer.
- The circular was accordingly set aside, and District Education Officers were directed to consider NOC applications individually, according to law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The appointing authority for the post is the District Education Officer.
- The Director (School Education) lacks authority to issue directions binding the discretion of the competent authority.
- The impugned circular amounts to arbitrary usurpation of powers and is inconsistent with statutory recruitment rules.
Respondent (State)
- Employees do not have an inherent right to an NOC; the employer can refuse such a request.
- Cited Division Bench precedent (WPSB No. 308 of 2024) affirming the employer’s right to deny NOCs as a general legal principle.
Factual Background
Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers (District Cadre) in various districts of Uttarakhand in January 2022 following a 2021 selection process. Seeking postings in more accessible locales, they intended to reapply for the post in their preferred districts, which required No Objection Certificates from the appointing authority. The Director (Elementary Education), by a circular dated 27.07.2024, instructed all District Education Officers not to issue any NOCs to serving Assistant Teachers. Petitioners contested this circular, asserting that it unlawfully curtailed the discretion vested in the District Education Officer under the governing recruitment rules.
Statutory Analysis
- The relevant recruitment rules specify that the District Education Officer is the appointing authority for Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School (District Cadre) posts.
- The Court held that under these rules, the Director has no statutory power to interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority.
- The impugned circular was found to be dehors (outside) the statutory rules and hence legally unsustainable.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7799
- Referenced judgment: WPSB No. 308 of 2024 (High Court of Uttarakhand)
- CNR: UKHC010122262024