Background Facts

The respondents were Constables in the Haryana Police. The Director General of Police, Haryana, passed an order whereby the names of certain Constables were included in the list for undergoing the Lower School Course. The course was mandatory for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The Constables challenged the inclusion of their names for the Lower School Course on the ground that the course is only an enabling qualification for seeking promotion.

The Constables did not wish to seek promotion. Therefore, they did not want to undergo the course. The Constables filed a writ petition seeking a direction that they cannot be compelled to undergo the promotional Course.

The Single Judge accepted the plea and set-aside the letter. It was held that only those Constables who are willing to undergo the Lower School Course may be sent for the said course. It was further held that no Constable can be compelled to undergo the said course, in case, he or she has given in writing that he or she does not wish to seek promotion.

Aggrieved by the same, the State of Haryana filed the appeals before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

It was argued by the State that the selection of Constables for admission to the Lower School Course is governed by Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of Haryana. It was submitted that the duty to maintain the said list is of the Government and no option such has been given to a Constable as per their willingness to undergo the said course.

It was further submitted that under Rule 13.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another is to be made by selection, tempered by seniority and that efficient and honest officers are to be given such promotion. Therefore, in order to identify suitable officers, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the officers so found suitable undergo the said course and deputed for the same. Hence, the said officer once directed to undergo a promotional course cannot object to undergoing the Lower School Course which is an essential qualification for promotion to the post of Head Constable from the post of Constable.

On the other hand, It was contended by the Constables that the Lower School Course is only an enabling qualification for seeking promotion and they do not wish to seek promotion. Therefore, they cannot be compelled to undergo the course.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that an employee who does not wish to seek promotion cannot be compelled to undergo a course which is only a qualification for promotion from Constable to Head Constable.

It was further observed that an employee who is ready to bear the brunt of the disentitlements attached to refusing of promotion, he or she cannot be made to undergo a promotional course. The promotion is a personal choice of an employee in order to gain rise in the service career. It was observed that in case, an employee does not wish to avail such gain and chooses to continue in the feeder cadre, the State cannot compel such employee to seek promotion against his or her wishes.

It was noted that in case an employee undergoes the promotional course at the cost of the state which will show his/her willingness to claim promotion, then such employee having undergone the course, cannot be allowed to retract that he/she is not willing in accepting the promotion. The willingness of an employee is to be seen at the very first stage, which starts with his or her selection for undergoing the Lower School Course.

It was held that if a Constable refuses to undergo the course so as not to claim eligibility for further promotion, the State cannot compel such employee, working in the feeder cadre, to undergo a course which is only an eligibility qualification for seeking further promotion.

It was further held that if an employee after undergoing the course refuses to accept the promotion, it will be discretion of the State to seek recovery of the resources or expenditure incurred upon such employee so that no unnecessary financial burden or loss is caused to the State exchequer.

It was held by the Division Bench that the state has to run its machinery of maintaining law and order. If there are no other employees except the particular employees working in the feeder cadre so as to work on the higher post and whose services are required for running the department smoothly, then required action can be taken by the state under such circumstances even to force such employees to work on higher post so that the smooth functioning of the department is not hindered.

It was further observed by the Division Bench that where other eligible employees are available to undergo the promotional course, a Constable who has refused promotion and chosen to remain in the feeder cadre cannot be compelled to undergo the course merely because the State is required to maintain a list of Constables eligible for promotion.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Counsel for the Appellant : Anu Pal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana

Counsel for the Respondent : Balkar Singh