“The promotion is the sweet will of the employee but such sweet will has to be exercised before the employee undertakes the promotional course,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held, dismissing a bunch of appeals filed by the Haryana government against an order of a Single Bench which stated that constables who do not wish to be promoted to the post of Head Constable cannot be compelled to undergo the mandatory Lower School Course.A division bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Minderjeet Yadav observed, “It may be noticed that an employee who does not wish to seek promotion cannot be compelled to undergo a course which is envisaged only as a qualification for promotion from the post of Constable to that of Head Constable.”The Bench further held, “The promotion is a personal choice of an employee in order to gain rise in the service career. 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.”The bench was hearing a batch of appeals filed by the state of Haryana challenging a September 4, 2025, judgment of a single judge in a case filed by Sandeep Kumar and others. The single judge had directed that if any constable was not interested in seeking promotion to the post of Head Constable, he or she would not be forced to undergo the promotional course or seek such promotion.The case arose from an August 4, 2025, order of the Director General of Police, Haryana, whereby the names of certain constables were included in the list for undergoing the Lower School Course, which is mandatory for promotion from Constable to Head Constable.The constables had challenged their inclusion in the list on the ground that the course was only an enabling qualification for seeking promotion and that they could not be compelled to undergo it after giving in writing that they did not wish to seek promotion.Appearing for the state, Anu Pal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the selection of constables for admission to the Lower School Course was governed by Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana. The state argued that maintaining the list was the government’s responsibility and no option had been provided to constables regarding their willingness to undergo the course.The state counsel further relied on Rule 13.1 of the rules, submitting that promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another was to be made by selection, tempered by seniority, and that efficient and honest officers were to be given promotion. The counsel for State argued that officers found suitable for promotion had to undergo the course and could not object to it.Rejecting the state’s argument, the division bench observed, “The argument raised on behalf of the State is that it is the duty of the State to make promotions even if the concerned employee working in the feeder cadre does not wish to seek such promotion.”The HC further held, “Further, an employee who is ready to bear the brunt of the disentitlements attached to refusing of such promotion, he or she cannot be made to undergo a promotional course.”The bench, however, clarified that an employee who had undergone the course at the state’s expense could not subsequently refuse promotion on the ground that promotion was a matter of choice. It observed, “In case an employee undergoes the promotional course at the cost of the state which will show his/her willingness to claim promotion, such employee having undergone the course, cannot be allowed to retract that he/she is not willing in accepting the promotion.”The HC added, “But an employee who has accepted the undergoing of the course and the state had spent financial resources upon such employee during the training imparted in such mandatory promotional Course, the employee concerned cannot subsequently resile from seeking promotion on the ground that promotion is a matter of choice.”It further observed that if an employee refused promotion after undergoing the course, “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 alongwith other disqualification attached and withdrawal of certain benefits including ACP.”The bench also recognised situations in which the state could take action to ensure the department’s functioning. It observed, “Further, in case, the state wants to run its machinery of maintaining law and order and 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, 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.”However, where other eligible employees were available, the HC held that a constable who refused promotion and chose to remain in the feeder cadre could not be forced to undergo the course merely because the state had to maintain a list of eligible constables.The bench also noted that nothing had been brought on record to show that a constable could not discharge the duties of the existing post without undergoing the Lower School Course.“Once without going to the Lower School Course, the constables are performing duties of their existing post which is being manned by them, the decision to make such course mandatory even for those Constables who do not wish to seek further promotion and have given in writing accepting the consequences attached thereto, the view taken by the learned single judge cannot be treated as perverse keeping in view the facts and the rules governing the issue,” the Bench observed dismissing the appeals.
