Coast Guard ordered to promote officer who had been bypassed

THE Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) has been ordered to promote a Coast Guard officer to the post of Fleet Chief Petty Officer (FCPO) into the strategic human resource management billet, retroactively.

The CDS was also ordered to pay Maria Jaikaransingh all arrears and benefits due to her after she was unlawfully bypassed in favor of a junior officer.

Justice Margaret Mohammed made the order on February 28.

In her ruling, the judge found that the CDS’s decision not to promote Jaikaransingh was unlawful, unreasonable, and in breach of her constitutional rights. The ruling quashed the promotion of the officer who was promoted ahead of her.

Jaikaransingh will also receive $110,000 in compensatory and vindicatory damages.

Jaikaransingh, who has served in the Coast Guard for 25 years, was recommended for promotion three times by her commanding officer, Capt Steve Don Riguel Polo.

According to the judgment, despite Jaikaransingh’s seniority, qualifications, and strong performance appraisals, the CDS chose to promote the other officer instead on December 30, 2022.

The Coast Guard claimed the other officer was selected because of his prior experience in the SHRM department, where there was a vacancy. However, Mohammed ruled that no written procedure existed for promotion from CPO to FCPO, and the Coast Guard failed to follow its established practice of considering recommendations from commanding officers.

“Based on the evidence, in the absence of any written procedure governing the promotion of a rating from CPO to FCPO, I am of the view that the settled procedure when there was an available billet was for the first defendant to consider ratings who had the recommendation of his /her commanding officer.

“I am of the view that the first defendant did not follow the established procedure.”

Mohammed also held that Jaikaransingh’s recommendations were overlooked because the acting commanding officer, Commander Akenaton Isaac, was unaware of them when he submitted the final list for promotions.

“Commander Isaac’s evidence was that he was unaware of the previous three recommendations for promotion made by Captain Polo.

“In my view, Commander Isaac’s evidence amounted to an admission that the first defendant was not provided with all the relevant information before he decided on the promotion to FCPO as he was deprived of Captain Polo’s recommendations for the claimant.”

She described the admission as “particularly disturbing” and astonishing, adding if proper and diligent enquiries were made, Jaikaransingh’s name would not have been omitted. "Instead of taking steps to remedy the error, they all subsequently sought to justify" the basis of the other officer's promotion to the rank of FCPO.

Mohammed also said Jaikaransingh had stronger qualifications than the other officer, holding an MBA, a BSc in Sociology, and multiple certifications, while the other only had an associate’s degree.

“While I accept that academic qualifications were only one of the requirements, in my opinion, the claimant had far superior academic qualifications…Experience in the particular department was not a relevant factor.”

In her ruling, Mohammed said the Coast Guard also failed to provide the other officer’s performance appraisals to prove the decision to promote him was reasonable.

She also held, “I am also of the view that the said decision was illegal as the first defendant did not even enquire about the reason the claimant’s name was omitted from the subsequent list which he received knowing that during the same year the claimant had received three recommendations for promotion to the rank of FCPO.”

Mohammed ruled that the failure to promote Jaikaransingh violated her constitutional rights to protection of the law and equal treatment and frustrated her legitimate expectation.

She also held that there was “unchallenged evidence” Jaikaransingh suffered financial loss because the CDS failed to promote her to FCPO.

On the issue of compensation, the judge said Jaikaransingh lost two years’ seniority.

“In my opinion, the declarations which the claimant has sought are not sufficient to vindicate the clear breach of her constitutional rights as the defendants’ actions caused her to lose seniority without justification.

She said Jaikaransingh “had to undergo significant distress and humiliation for two years” seeing a junior officer promoted above her “when she was far more senior and had significantly superior academic qualifications and experience with three recommendations from her commanding officer.”

"I have decided to make an award for vindicatory damages as it is imperative that the court register its disgust and outrage in the very poor manner in which very senior officers in the TTCG, namely Captain Polo, Commander Isaac, Colonel Keston Charles and the first defendant (CDS) treated with the claimant’s matter even after it was discovered that due to Commander Isaac’s error the claimant was bypassed for promotion.

"From the evidence the claimant was an exemplary officer who served with distinction. It is alarming that even after the discovery of the error nothing was done to remedy it but instead those officer sought to justify the said decision."

During the case, Jaikaransingh successfully obtained an injunction that halted all FCPO promotions until the ruling.

Attorneys Arden Williams, Anthony Moore and Mariah Ramrattan represented Jaikaransingh. Rachel Theophilus, Aryanta Williams, Nikita Ali and Abigail Bristo appeared for the CDS and the Attorney General.