Judge reinstates Happy Hill principal

A HIGH COURT judge has ordered the Education Ministry to allow the principal of the Happy Hill Hindu Primary School to resume duties from January 2, 2024.

Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell made the order on Wednesday and declared Indra Ramdatt-Jagdeo held the substantive position of principal (primary) in the teaching service.

The judge also declared Ramdatt-Jagdeo was and remained entitled to be paid the salary and benefits for the post and ordered the ministry to pay her salary and benefits in accordance with the court’s orders.

In her lawsuit against the Teaching Service Commission and the ministry, Ramdatt-Jagdeo said she sought advice from TSC because of her daughter’s worsening medical condition.

“The applicant/ intended claimant began having doubts as to how she could take on the responsibility as a Principal Primary in light of her daughter’s deteriorating condition. She felt overwhelmed as she had a full plate.

“However, she was greatly concerned about losing all her years of dedicated service within the teaching service. To seek clarification and advice, she contacted the Teaching Service Commission via telephone and spoke to a senior officer from the primary school section.”

Ramdatt-Jagdeo’s claim said she was advised she could ask for her appointment as principal to be rescinded so her service would remain preserved and she would have the option of reverting to her previous lower substantive post of Teacher 1.

“ The applicant/ intended claimant was also given the assurance that her service would not be broken and she would remain a member of the teaching service. “

The lawsuit said she decided to tender her resignation and asked that she be reverted to the lower post and did so in April.

With her daughter’s worsening condition, she said she was in great distress and felt compelled to go ahead with her decision.

The lawsuit also said since her letter had no definite date for the rescission of her position as principal, she was unaware she would have no definite school of employment. Two days later, she had a change of heart and asked for a retraction as “she no longer wanted to rescind her position as principal.”

She said she was initially told her reinstatement would not be a problem but was then advised it could not take place since there was a problem with the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha board.

Ramdatt-Jagdeo met with the SDMS board, which allegedly said because she was being indecisive, it was preferred she did not return as principal to any of their schools.

She continued to sign in, as advised, at the education district office and continued to receive her salary. Ramdatt-Jagdeo also tried to get feedback from the ministry on her status but was unsuccessful.

In September, she was told she would not be allowed to report for duty at the district office unless she got written approval from the ministry. She was initially allowed to continue to report but then she was told she could no longer do so as it was illegal.

The lawsuit said because of the conflicting information she was receiving and the failure of the authorities to respond to her requests for information on her status, Ramdatt-Jagdeo filed her lawsuit for the “inordinate and unreasonable delay” in appointing her to an office in the teaching service or reinstating her position as principal (Primary).

She was represented by attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, Natasha Bisram, Kent Samlal, Vishaal Siewsaran, Jayanti Lutchmedial and Jared Jagroo.