Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A prison of­fi­cer has suf­fered a de­feat in his fi­nal ap­peal over be­ing al­leged­ly by­passed for pro­mo­tion by the Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (PSC).

In a judg­ment de­liv­ered yes­ter­day, three Law Lords of the Unit­ed King­dom-based Privy Coun­cil dis­missed the ap­peal brought by Gedeon Ma­habir against the PSC.

La­dy In­grid Sim­ler, who wrote the board’s judg­ment, said a lo­cal High Court Judge and Court of Ap­peal could not be fault­ed for con­sec­u­tive­ly re­ject­ing Ma­habir’s case.

The law­suit re­lat­ed to a large pro­mo­tion ex­er­cise con­duct­ed by the PSC in 2013.

Ma­habir, a Prison Of­fi­cer I, was as­sessed for pro­mo­tion to the rank of Prison Of­fi­cer II and placed 181 on a mer­it list com­piled by the PSC.

How­ev­er, on­ly the first 180 of­fi­cers on the list were pro­mot­ed, and he was not.

He filed the law­suit al­leg­ing the PSC act­ed un­law­ful­ly in retroac­tive­ly pro­mot­ing five of his col­leagues, who par­tic­i­pat­ed in the ex­er­cise but re­tired or re­signed at the time of the mass pro­mo­tions.

In 2015, Ma­habir’s case was re­ject­ed by a High Court Judge, who ruled that the PSC had com­plied with its reg­u­la­tions by ef­fect­ing pro­mo­tions based on the mer­it list.

Six years lat­er, his ap­peal was dis­missed by three Ap­pel­late Judges, in­clud­ing then-Chief Jus­tice Ivor Archie.

In the ap­peal, the board was asked to con­sid­er whether the PSC had the au­thor­i­ty to make the retroac­tive pro­mo­tions and whether the en­tire ex­er­cise was un­law­ful based on the com­mis­sion’s al­leged fail­ure to fol­low its pro­mo­tions reg­u­la­tions by in­tro­duc­ing a new points-based as­sess­ment sys­tem.

La­dy Sim­ler said the PSC did have the au­thor­i­ty to retroac­tive­ly pro­mote.

Stat­ing that retroac­tive pro­mo­tions are not un­usu­al in T&T, La­dy Sim­ler said there are strong pol­i­cy rea­sons for such.

"First­ly, it is in the in­ter­ests of good ad­min­is­tra­tion that pro­mo­tion de­ci­sions are op­er­at­ed in an or­der­ly way by hav­ing a clear date from which they take ef­fect," she said.

"Sec­ond­ly, it is fair to can­di­dates for pro­mo­tion that they should not be pe­nalised by de­lay or events be­yond their con­trol and there­by de­prived of the ben­e­fits to which they would oth­er­wise be en­ti­tled if the fi­nal pe­ri­od of their ser­vice is treat­ed as hav­ing been ser­vice in the high­er of­fice," she added.

La­dy Sim­ler al­so not­ed that Ma­habir was not dis­ad­van­taged by the de­ci­sion, which af­ford­ed his col­leagues in­creased re­tire­ment ben­e­fits.