Senior cops claim bias in oral assessment for promotion

TWO acting assistant commissioners of police (ACP) have been permitted to challenge the assessment process conducted by a consultancy firm for first-division officers in the police service.

On September 10, Justice Joan Charles granted leave to acting ACPs Winston Maharaj and Subhash Ramkhelawan to pursue their challenge against the Police Commissioner and Odyssey ConsultInc Ltd (OCL).

The two senior officers are seeking declarations that the assessment process for the rank of ACP was unlawful. They have specifically complained about a member of one of the four interview panels – a retired police officer – for their oral assessment on September 3. Both officers previously worked with the retired officer, with whom they had a “fractious” relationship.

They complained about the retired officer’s inclusion on the panel before they were assessed, and their lawsuit said it was irrational. They have alleged apparent bias in the process.

Maharaj has since sought disclosure of the marking sheets for his assessment.

Ramkhelawan complained he was not told of a general briefing the consultancy firm held before the oral assessment where he could have raised his concerns.

Their lawsuit said the promotion process for the rank of ACP was “imminent,” with only ten vacancies.

Both senior officers fear their allegedly compromised assessment could affect their placement on the order of merit list and will be prejudiced.

Their lawsuit further alleged a fundamental breach of confidentiality, as the written assessment scores of nine other candidates were disclosed to one of them. Their lawsuit said OCL was required to rate the candidates, create the merit list and submit it to the commissioner, and the “unauthorised disclosure” was unlawful.

Maharaj’s attorneys sent a pre-action letter on September 6, but there has been no response, and the lawsuit contends the officers could not wait for a formal response, although they are not sure whether OCL has yet submitted the merit list.

Their lawsuit seeks an order directing OCL to re-interview them before a new panel and for two vacancies of ACP to be preserved by the commissioner pending the hearing and determination of their claim. They are also seeking disclosure of the interview score sheets and other material used by the panel to determine their marks, as well as the composition of each panel.

Their attorneys have also asked OCL to hold its hand on generating a merit list and the commissioner from going ahead with the promotion until September 17, when their injunction application will be heard.

The officers are represented by attorneys Vashisht Seepersad and Leon Kalichara.