From Air Force To J&K Administrative Services: High Court Grants Relief To Airman Who Breached Rules To Pursue Civil Service Career

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's request for discharge from Air Force service and seeking directions to permit him to continue as an officer in the Jammu & Kashmir Administrative Service.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while disposing of the petition, observed that “denying him permission to continue his service as an Officer of the J&K Administrative Service would work very harshly against him… and would lead to wastage of a great talent.”

The petitioner was enrolled in the Air Force and later applied for the Combined Competitive Examination conducted for recruitment to the Jammu & Kashmir Administrative Service. He sought permission from the competent authority before applying, but the request was rejected because the post did not fall within the permissible category under service rules.

Despite the refusal of permission, he appeared in the examination and was selected. After selection, he applied again seeking discharge from service so as to join a civil post. A recommending authority supported his release; however, the request was ultimately rejected, prompting the petitioner to approach the Court.

The petitioner challenged the rejection order, contending that applicable Air Force Orders permitted discharge for valid personal reasons and that he had completed the required years of service. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that permission could not be granted because the post was not a Group-A post and that the petitioner had applied without prior permission.

The J&K and Ladakh High Court first held that on a strict reading of the governing Air Force Orders, the petitioner did not satisfy eligibility conditions for applying for the civil post, as the post fell within Group-B classification and therefore permission had rightly been denied by the competent authority.

It also held that the order relied upon by the petitioner, permitting discharge for personal reasons, was inapplicable to cases involving selection to civil posts. Thus, strictly applying the governing rules, the rejection of his request for discharge could not be faulted.

The Court then referred to a Supreme Court ruling in Amit Kumar Roy Vs. Union of India and Ors, 2019, holding that a member of the Air Force does not possess an unqualified right to leave service under Article 19(1)(g), and that considerations of operational preparedness and service requirements justify restrictions on such departures.

The Court then examined whether equitable jurisdiction should nevertheless be exercised. It noted that courts in similar situations had granted relief where peculiar facts justified indulgence and therefore considered the petitioner's personal circumstances and conduct.

The Court remarked: “the petitioner belongs to a far flung village… both his parents were uneducated… he has undergone studies after facing acute hardships and difficulties… he had to join employment with Indian Air Force to feed himself and his family… even while performing his job with Indian Air Force, he continued to work hard and completed his graduation… without any formal coaching… obtained the requisite merit in the Combined Competitive Examination… This attitude… is required to be appreciated and encouraged.”

It further noted that “even while performing his duties with the Air Force, the petitioner had shown great dedication… he had no disciplinary violations in his service…”

Considering these factors, the Court held that the petitioner “has potential to attain great heights in his career, denying him permission… would work very harshly against him… and would lead to wastage of a great talent.”

The Court also observed that the petitioner had already left Air Force service years earlier and had since been serving as an officer in the Administrative Service, and that directing his re-induction into the Air Force at this stage would expose him to disciplinary consequences and disrupt his established civil service career.

At the same time, the Court held that the petitioner could not be allowed to escape the consequences of breaching service conditions and therefore conditions needed to be imposed while granting relief.

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the authorities to issue a No Objection Certificate and a discharge certificate to the petitioner, subject to his depositing ₹3,00,000 with the Air Force authorities within the stipulated period, with liberty to adjust the amount against any dues payable to him.

Case Title: Himmat Kumar Raina v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment