Derek Achong
A senior fire officer is set to receive compensation for being bypassed for promotion in favour of a colleague, who was his junior.
On Monday, High Court Judge Margaret Mohammed delivered a 57-page judgment in which she upheld acting Assistant Chief Fire Officer Siewnarine Ramsaran's judicial review and constitutional motion lawsuit against the Chief Fire Officer, Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Office of the Attorney General.
According to the evidence, 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 pre-requisite for the position.
Ramsaran's colleague Mervyn Layne, also a Divisional Fire Officer, who was acting as an Assistant Chief Fire Officer, was granted the acting appointment over him despite him (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 Layne was given a second acting term, early last year.
In the judgment, Mohammed noted that the case would set a precedent for acting appointments within the T&T Fire Service.
Mohammed ruled that the commission's regulations on promotions specifically referenced experience and not seniority.
In my opinion, seniority is not necessarily an important component in "experience" as a non-performing senior officer is not necessarily an experienced officer," the judge.
She also ruled that Ramsaran could not claim that he was treated unfairly before completing the pre-requisite course as he did not qualify for consideration until then.
However, she did rule that the Chief Fire Officer 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 Layne a second acting term.
As part of the case, Mohammed was asked to consider whether the conduct of the defendants breached Ramsaran's constitutional rights to protection of the law and equality of treatment from a public authority.
She ruled that his protection of the law rights were not infringed as he had the option to bring a lawsuit to challenge what transpired, which he took.
"In the circumstances of this case, judicial review is the avenue which is an effective remedy for the unfair and unlawful treatment which the claimant has complained of as he was denied his opportunity to be heard," Mohammed said.
The judge ruled that his right to equality of treatment was breached as he proved that he was treated differently from his comparator Layne and there was no justification for the differential treatment.
"The claimant having discharged the burden placed on him, there was no evidence from the First Defendant to justify the frustration of the legitimate expectation held by the claimant," she said.
Apart from granting declarations to Ramsaran, Mohammed also ordered the Chief Fire Officer and the commission to reconsider his claim for an acting appointment within 28 days.
She also ordered that Ramsaran should receive monetary compensation and vindicatory damages to highlight the court's disapproval of the conduct in the case, she did not immediately make an assessment.
The parties are expected to be given directions for filing submissions on the issue when the case comes up for hearing on August 27.
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.