Promotion from Kennelman to Constable under Punjab Police standing orders cannot be claimed merely because the employee underwent training; actual discharge of Kennelman duties and supporting evidence are essential. The High Court did not decide the merits, allowing withdrawal with liberty to refile upon obtaining further proof. Existing requirements remain undisturbed; this order serves as persuasive authority for similar factual scenarios in police and public employment contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/27769/2025 of SANJEEV KUMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011489382025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive (no authoritative precedent set, as petition was dismissed as withdrawn) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere completion of Kennel Man training entitles promotion to Constable without evidence of actual discharge of Kennel Man duties under the relevant standing order. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner’s claim for promotion from Kennelman to Constable. It was made clear that undergoing training alone is insufficient; discharge of Kennelman duties as per the standing order and supporting evidence are prerequisite for such a claim. The petition was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner, who sought liberty to refile if further evidence emerges. The Court granted withdrawal with liberty, leaving the substantive legal question open but highlighting the evidentiary requirement for such service claims. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was appointed as a Class IV employee in Punjab Police in 2013, regularized in December 2016, deputed for Kennelman training in July 2019, and completed the course on 10.02.2020. He was transferred to Nawanshahr and submitted representations for promotion, but the State asserted he had not performed Kennelman duties. Upon this clarification, the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to refile if evidence is found. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None (as the matter was dismissed as withdrawn, not decided on merits; persuasive for similar cases) |
| Persuasive For | Police departments, public service commissions, and courts addressing promotion claims involving factual proof of functional experience |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court emphasized that simply having undergone Kennelman training does not establish entitlement to promotion; actual, proven discharge of Kennelman duties is key.
- Petitioners must furnish evidence of performing requisite duties, not just training or formal deputation, when seeking promotion under departmental standing orders.
- Withdrawal with liberty to refile is possible when further evidence may become available; the substantive rights remain open for future litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the status of the petitioner (appointment, training, and representation seeking promotion).
- The State, through affidavit, clarified that the petitioner had not, in fact, been assigned or discharged Kennelman duties.
- The Court noted that the standing order (Annexure P-4, dated 21.01.2002) governs promotion criteria and factual fulfillment is necessary for consideration.
- Recognizing the lack of evidence and in light of submissions, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh if factual evidence of Kennelman duty emerges.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought direction for promotion from Kennelman to Constable on the basis of successful completion of required training and standing order provisions.
- Requested withdrawal of the petition, with liberty to file afresh if evidence is obtained regarding actual duties performed.
Respondent (State)
- Asserted via affidavit that the petitioner, while trained, had not performed Kennelman duties and thus was ineligible for promotion under the standing order.
Factual Background
The petitioner was a Class IV employee in the Punjab Police, regularized in 2016, deputed for Kennelman training in July 2019, and completed the course in February 2020. Transferred to Nawanshahr in 2024, he sought promotion to Constable per a 2002 standing order. The State disputed his claim, stating he never actually performed Kennelman duties. After this clarification, the petitioner withdrew his claim with liberty to refile if evidence showing actual duty is found.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced the standing order dated 21.01.2002 issued by the Inspector General of Police, which sets out criteria for promotion from Kennelman to Constable.
- No specific statute was interpreted, but the operative legal principle involved the evidentiary threshold necessary to fulfill the standing order’s requirements.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions exist in this single-judge oral decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court permitted withdrawal of the writ with explicit liberty to refile if new evidence of duty emerges — exemplifying procedural flexibility for fresh adjudication in service matters upon new facts.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court did not alter any existing legal standard; it reaffirmed the factual evidentiary requirement for promotion claims under standing orders.