Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A former fire officer’s lawsuit alleging that he was bypassed for acting appointments before he retired will have to go to the Privy Council.
In a judgment, last month, Appellate Judges Prakash Moosai, Charmaine Pemberton, and Gillian Lucky ruled that a High Court Judge got it wrong when she partially upheld Siewnarine Ramsaran’s lawsuit against the Chief Fire Officer (CFO), Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Office of the Attorney General in 2021.
According to the evidence in the case, Ramsaran sought to act as Deputy Chief Fire Officer after the position became vacant in May 2019. However, he was informed that he could not qualify for the substantive position as he had not completed a brigade command course, which was the prerequisite for the position.
Ramsaran’s colleague, also a Divisional Fire Officer who like him was acting as an Assistant Chief Fire Officer (ACFO), was granted the acting appointment over him despite Ramsaran having seniority in the substantive post, as he received his appointment four days earlier.
Ramsaran subsequently completed the course in the United Kingdom but was still not considered for the post when his colleague was given a second acting term in early 2020.
In upholding the case, Justice Margaret Mohammed ruled that Ramsaran was not eligible for the acting appointment before completing the course.
She ruled that the CFO acted unfairly as he did not inform the commission that Ramsaran was eligible to be considered for the acting appointment after he completed the course. She also criticised the commission for failing to allow Ramsaran to make representations before they gave his colleague a second acting term.
Mohammed also ruled that Ramsaran’s constitutional right to equality of treatment from a public authority was breached.
In weighing in on the case, Justice Pemberton ruled that she correctly decided his case in relation to the period before he attained the qualification. However, she found that Justice Mohammed was wrong to rule that he should have been considered after completing the course.
“Ramsaran, although meeting the academic qualification criteria, did not meet the nature and length of service criteria and therefore was not eligible to be considered for the acting position of ACFO,” Justice Pemberton said.
Justice Pemberton ruled that the commission did not breach its regulations and Ramsaran’s constitutional right was not breached. She said courts cannot seek to substitute their decision for that of a decision maker when conducting judicial reviews.
“The decision maker is vested with authority and/or power either derived from a statute or otherwise with that function, duty or mandate. That is the competent authority,” she said.
Justice Pemberton said the same applies when breaches of constitutional rights are found.
“Such relief in the appropriate case may order a Commission to reconsider its decision concerning the appointment or non-appointment of a person, based on a breach of a constitutional right to equality of treatment from a public authority in the exercise of its functions and/or the employment of faulty procedure,” she said.
Ramsaran was represented by Anand Ramlogan, SC, Jayanti Lutchmedial, Renuka Rambhajan, and Alana Rambaran.
Nadine Nabie, Nicol Yee Fung, Zara Smith, Avaria Niles and Radha Sookdeo represented the defendants.
