`Have guts to take on IAS, IPS babus?`: SC to Govt
The Supreme Court today ticked off the Centre for frequently filing appeals challenging issues relating to class IV employees but not having the "guts" to take on IAS/IPS officers over such issues.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today ticked off
the Centre for frequently filing appeals challenging issues
relating to class IV employees but not having the "guts" to
take on IAS/IPS officers over such issues.
"Why do you come to us frequently against labourers,
kalasis and chaprasis. Do you have the guts to take on IAS/
IPS officers? You keeping filing petitions against class IV
employees but not against IAS/IPS officers. That`s because you
don`t have the guts," a bench of Justices B S Chauhan and
Swatanter Kumar remarked.
The apex court passed the observation while dismissing
the Centre`s appeal challenging a Punjab and Haryana High
Court direction to appoint Jarnail Singh as a labourer in the
Ministry of Defence.
According to Wasim Ahmed Quadri, the Centre`s counsel,
though Singh was selected after an interview, he could not be
appointed to the post for want of sanction as it was "time
The counsel submitted that Singh was considered to the
post on March 10, 1990, by the ministry, though the last date
for appointment as per the rules was May 25, 1989.
Quadri submitted that the final appointment was subject
to the condition that it would get the requisite sanction from
the government. As the sanction could not be accorded, as it
was time barred, he was not appointed.
Singh challenged the decision before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in favour of the Centre,
but the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the government
to appoint Singh to the post.
The High Court noted that Singh was entitled for
appointment as the selection process was conducted through the
Aggrieved, the Centre appealed in the apex court.
The apex court while upholding the high court`s direction
said the "question of law" on the issue would, however, be
In other words, the direction for appointment has been
made on the facts of the present case but not as a general