Judge preserves police promotion list

A High Court judge has ordered the preservation of an order of merit list for the rank of inspectors of police.

On Friday, Justice Ricky Rahim permitted 23 sergeants who challenged the decision to impose an expiry date on a 2021 order of merit list.

The group who wrote and passed the promotion examination for the rank of inspector had asked for an injunction extending the 2021 merit list until their legal challenge was determined and until the list was exhausted after appointments were made.

According to their lawsuit, a merit list was generated in 2020. Having obtained the marks for promotion, the 23 were put on the list.

In December 2020, 91 officers on that list were promoted, but none of the 23 were despite many of them having acted as inspectors for substantive periods.

In June 2021, the list was revised and they were again put on it. The revision was to facilitate exemption for those officers who received a law degree before 2010 and the award of 35 points for the examination component of the assessment. The validity of the revised list was extended for two years. The extension and the revision were contained in separate departmental orders.

The police officers say the extension of the existing merit list was irrational since it conflicted with other departmental orders.

On October 27, 2022, the list was again extended to December 2023. This the officers say is contrary to the established practice of the Commissioner of Police (CoP), Erla Harewood-Christopher and the Promotions Advisor Board (PAB) both of which are named as the defendants in the lawsuit.

The extension of the list to December 21 was later rescinded on November 21, instead the expiry date was changed to December 15.

In the absence of an extension of the list beyond December 15, the officers say there will be no applicable merit list for their promotion if a vacancy arises and all of them will have to reapply again.

In 2023, close to a dozen officers were promoted to inspector. “At present, several vacancies exist for the rank of Inspector. However, no appointments were made by the first respondent to fill the said vacancies. “

The lawsuit said it was established practice that merit lists for second division officers existed until exhausted as there was no time limit for a list for these officers in the police service regulations.

“The merit list is extended until it is exhausted by virtue of all the listed police officers being appointed when vacancies arise.”

Rahim extended the validity of the list until it was either exhausted or until the officers’ claim was determined.

However, he refused to prohibit the holding of promotion assessments for inspectors. He said it remained in the interest of the public that the commissioner and the PAB continue to carry out their duty.

In his ruling, Rahim made it clear that in determining the application for interim relief and the grant of leave was in no way a finding of fact on his part.

“There is of course a serious issue to be tried in relation to the reasonableness and irrationality of the decision to dispense with the list altogether.

“When asked by the court as to from what list will persons be taken in the event there is a need to fill vacancies of inspector, attorney for the respondents’ somewhat terse answer was that the CoP does not intend to fill any vacancies at the moment.”

He said in determining if to grant the injunction, he had to weigh the likely damage, harm or consequences to the 23 officers.

“ It is in the public interest to ensure that the functions are not unnecessarily inhibited. It is also in the public interest that the best candidates be promoted without delay, for reasons of efficiency and good administration.

“That being said, the position is that the expiration of the list means that there is no list from which promotions can be made at present.”

He said attorneys for the commissioner and the PAB acknowledged there would be no adverse effects if the validity of the list was extended but would inhibit the commissioner’s constitutional duty to promote officers in the service. However, Rahim said this position was “a bit troubling.”

“Clearly there must be some measure put in place for promotions in the meantime but the Respondents have chosen not to put any such measure before the court so as to satisfy it that the extension of the list would be to inhibit the functions of the COP. Absolutely nothing has been offered in that regard.

“...The CoP has not even said to the court that new applications will be solicited or the process restarted etc. So that it cannot with the greatest of respect be the case that the CoP sits back and says well I have a constitutional duty and therefore I can exercise that duty however I want without disclosing same to the court in a case such as this as it is the court to be satisfied whether the order that it is being asked to make infringes on her duties.

“The court has not been told whether there is to be another system put in place for example to facilitate promotions. How therefore are promotions from sergeant to inspector to be made in the interest of the public? Maybe more information shall be forthcoming as the case proceeds but the court can only work with what has been provided to it thus far…”

He added, “There is considerable weight in the damage likely to be suffered not only by the Police Service as a whole and the country at large by extension in not having a list from which to fill vacancies should they arise but also by the twenty-three applicants.”

The matter will again come up for a hearing on January 24.

The officers are represented by Saira Lakhan, Kristian Stacy Dass, Gobin Harryperrsad, and Devi Ramnarine.