JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. 1. The respondent No.1 joined Damodar Valley Corporation, the appellant No.1 above named by virtue of the letter of appointment dated August 22, 2002 as Graduate Engineer Trainee (Mechanical). After completion of training he was confirmed and was working as Executive Engineer (Mechanical) at all material times. He also executed a bond in favour of the Damodar Valley Corporation to indemnify the Corporation to the extent that in case he left the organization within three years from the date of successful completion of training he would pay to the Corporation a sum of rupees two lakhs along with interest thereon. Since he had completed service for more than three years the effect of the said bond spent its force. By a memo dated March 7, 2007 the Damodar Valley Corporation decided to appoint Safety Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000/- 275-11,050/- in the present infrastructure of the Corporation from amongst the engineers working in the Corporation. By the said memo it was provided that invitation would be made to the in-house engineers for working as Safety Officer. After completion of training such engineers would be posted in safety wing as Safety Officer. The respondent No.1 applied for the said post vide letter dated May 4, 2007 appearing at page 98 of the paper book. His application was accepted by the Corporation. Corporation sponsored him for training for about eight months as would appear from the memorandum dated July 5, 2007 appearing at page 99 of the paper book. It also appears from the said memorandum that a sum of rupees seven thousand was paid by the Corporation on account of training fee. In addition, the concerned engineer was paid regular allowance and salary for the period when he had undergone such training as would appear from the office order dated July 5, 2007 appearing at page 100 of the paper book. 2. Souvik duly attended the training and completed the same on July 4, 2008. He was, however, not posted as Safety Officer although he made request therefor. 3. In January, 2009 National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NTPC), another Central Governmental Undertaking under the same Ministry of Power, published an advertisement inviting application for the post of Safety Officer. Souvik became interested for the post. He was, however, not posted as Safety Officer although he made request therefor. 3. In January, 2009 National Thermal Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NTPC), another Central Governmental Undertaking under the same Ministry of Power, published an advertisement inviting application for the post of Safety Officer. Souvik became interested for the post. He sent a letter of request dated January 3, 2009 to the appellant/Corporation for appropriate No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as NOC) so that he could apply for the said post. The authority did not act upon such request. In his letter of request Souvik categorically pointed out that the new appointment, if given to Souvik, would attract higher salary. 4. Souvik sent another letter of request on June 15, 2009 when NTPC published further advertisement for the said post in May, 2009. Souvik applied for the said post. He participated in the selection process. NTPC selected him for the post and offered him appointment on July 29, 2009 as would appear from the letter of appointment appearing at page 30 thereof. Finding no other alternative Souvik resigned from the appellant/ Corporation vide letter dated August 12, 2009 appearing at page 40 thereof. He categorically made it clear in the letter that he would be receiving much higher sum than what he was getting from the appellant/Corporation. The appellant/Corporation did not act upon the said letter of resignation. Situation became complicated when NTPC insisted Souvik for joining the post. They extended the joining period till November 28, 2009 and made it clear that if he did not join by that date the letter of appointment would stand cancelled and withdrawn. The Corporation by two letters dated August 31, 2009 and September 1, 2009 appearing at pages 42 and 43 respectively, rejected both his prayers, i.e. for NOC as well as acceptance of resignation. The Corporation, however, did not assign any reason. Souvik again wrote to the appellant/Corporation requesting them to release him so that he could take up his new assignment. Finding no answer, he approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition on September 11, 2009. The learned Single Judge vide order dated October 30, 2009 disposed of the writ petition by holding that reason for refusal to release Souvik sounds very unreasonable. His Lordship directed the appellant/Corporation to accept the letter of resignation and issue release order latest by November 15, 2009. The learned Single Judge vide order dated October 30, 2009 disposed of the writ petition by holding that reason for refusal to release Souvik sounds very unreasonable. His Lordship directed the appellant/Corporation to accept the letter of resignation and issue release order latest by November 15, 2009. Being aggrieved by the said order dated October 30, 2009 appellant/Corporation preferred the above appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned dates. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal contended as follows:- (i) The respondent himself applied for the post and obtained necessary training at the cost of the Corporation. Hence, the Corporation should be allowed to avail his service as Safety Officer. (ii) Corporation vide memo dated March 7, 2007 decided to appoint Safety Officer from the in-house candidates and invited applications therefor. Souvik availed the training course. His release would put the Corporation in jeopardy as they were statutorily bound to appoint Safety Officer. (iii) Corporation offered the post to the in-house candidates Souvik applied for the post by accepting such offer and had undergone training at the cost of the Corporation. Hence, Corporation had a legitimate expectation that Souvik would serve them as Safety Officer. The Corporation was thus entitled to refuse to give NOC or refuse to accept letter of resignation. 6. To support his contention Mr. Banerjee cited the Apex Court decision in the case of B.S. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute & other, reported in 1983, Volume-IV, Supreme Court Cases, page 582. He relied on paragraphs 23 and 24 to support his contention that the bye-laws and/or guidelines had statutory force. He contended that an executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must be scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. Citing the said decision Mr. Banerjee referred to the handbook on Administrative Guidelines wherein it was provided that the State was justified in demanding the service of an employee who obtained technical training at the cost of the Government. He contended that such executive instruction should be made applicable in the instant case. 7. Mr. Banerjee prayed for setting aside of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Opposing the appeal, Mr. He contended that such executive instruction should be made applicable in the instant case. 7. Mr. Banerjee prayed for setting aside of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Pratik Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 contended as follows:- (i) Souvik executed a bond to indemnify the Corporation to serve them for three years. Such period having been over, Corporation was not entitled to refuse release of Souvik either by giving No Objection or by refusing to accept the letter of resignation. (ii) Souvik completed training on July 4, 2008. Despite his request he was never posted as Safety Officer. Hence, there could be no justification for the Corporation to refuse his release. (iii) There was no justified cause for the Corporation to refuse issuance of No Objection Certificate when no disciplinary-proceeding or vigilance case was pending against Souvik. (iv) Assuming the Corporation was justified in refusing Souvik to give No Objection Certificate, the Corporation was bound to accept the letter of resignation in terms of Regulation 18 of Damodar Valley Corporation Service (Conduct) Regulations, 1955. (v) There is no clause in the memorandum dated 07.03.2007 of the Damodar Valley Corporation that after undergoing training the engineers will have to serve the Corporation for a particular period. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have considered the rival contentions. 10. Let us first adjudicate on the issue of No Objection. Souvik joined the Corporation and executed bond to indemnify them in case he leaves within three years. Such period of three years was admittedly over. Mr. Banerjee could not satisfy us as to why they were entitled to resist Souvik from leaving the organization. Service conditions do not stipulate any such power, save and except where vigilance case or disciplinary proceeding is pending. The office memorandum dated December 5, 2006 was shown to us by Mr. Banerjee. Clause B is set out below:- "B. In respect of regular employees after expiry of the bond period/without any bond agreement may apply for issuance of NO Objection Certificate through proper channel for outside employment (including Govt./Semi-Government/Government Autonomous Body Public Sector Undertakings) and the same shall be issued subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:- 1. Banerjee. Clause B is set out below:- "B. In respect of regular employees after expiry of the bond period/without any bond agreement may apply for issuance of NO Objection Certificate through proper channel for outside employment (including Govt./Semi-Government/Government Autonomous Body Public Sector Undertakings) and the same shall be issued subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:- 1. The application/prayer for seeking No Objection Certificate must be (a) supported by the advertisement/circular for the post applied for, (b) submitted atleast fifteen (15) days in advance and (c) routed through the proper channel. 2. Scale of pay (both minimum and maximum) of the epost for which No Objection Certificate is sought for must be higher than that of the scale the incumbent is holding. 3. Issuance of No Objection Certificate shall be restricted to maximum number of 4 (four) in a calendar year (excluding application to U.P.S.C.) 4. For the sake of Public Interest or otherwise No Objection Certificate may not be issued and decision of the competent authority shall be final & binding to all concerned. 5. No Objection Certificate shall be issued only to that employee who is neither under suspension nor disciplinary criminal proceeding is pending against him." 11. On perusal of the said clause and on analysis of facts we do not find any scope for refusing No objection Certificate. It is true that copy of the advertisement or appointment letter was not sent along with the application. However, those were disclosed in the writ proceeding. Hence, the authority got the benefit of those documents. Souvik also pointed out that his new assignment would attract higher salary. Such contention was not disputed by Corporation. The Corporation never took the plea of public interest and in any event, we do not find any such plea available. We are prompted to say so as we find that Souvik was not been appointed as Safety Officer despite his training qualification. No disciplinary proceeding or criminal proceeding was pending against him. Hence, as per the circular dated December 5, 2006, in our view, Souvik is entitled to get No Objection. It is true that the Corporation vide memo dated March 7, 2007 decided to appoint in-house candidates for the post of Safety Officer. It is their decision. It is also true that the Corporation could not avail his service for about eight months when he had undergone training at their cost. It is true that the Corporation vide memo dated March 7, 2007 decided to appoint in-house candidates for the post of Safety Officer. It is their decision. It is also true that the Corporation could not avail his service for about eight months when he had undergone training at their cost. But Corporation agreed to treat the period of training as on duty. In absence of any specific restriction the Corporation is not entitled to refuse No Objection, even if we apply the notifications and/or memorandums referred to above. 12. Let us now consider the issue of resignation. Souvik admittedly resigned on August 12, 2009. No disciplinary or criminal case was pending against him. No vigilance case was pending against him. No inquiry was pending against him. The service conditions do not empower the Corporation to stop him from leaving the organization. In this regard, we may refer to Regulation 18 wherein the Corporation is empowered to stop an employee from leaving the organization when an inquiry was pending against him. It also empowers the Corporation to retain him until suitable arrangement is made for his release (wrongly printed as relief). In the instant case, question of his replacement as a Safety Officer did not arise as he was never posted as such. More than four months have passed in between. The Corporation is not entitled to retain him any further. Souvik is thus entitled to be released on the strength of the letter of resignation. 13. On both counts we find that Souvik was unnecessarily detained by the appellant Corporation. In our view, he should be released forthwith. 14. Appeal fails and is, hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. 15. The appellant Corporation is directed to issue appropriate letter of release by December 26, 2009. In default, Souvik would be entitled to join NTPC on the expiry of December 26, 2009 and he would be deemed to have been so released by the appellant Corporation with effect from December 26, 2009 so that he can join NTPC on December 28, 2009 or so soon thereafter being the deadline fixed by NTPC for him. 16. Urgent xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. I agree. Later on:- 17. Mr. Tarafdar, appearing for the appellant prays for stay of operation of this judgment and order. Such prayer is considered and rejected.