Court orders $.2m for clerk in Public Service Commission promotion case

A HIGH COURT judge has found that the Public Service Commission (PSC) breached the constitutional rights of a public officer by wrongfully denying her appointment, awarding her $220,000 in damages.

The case revolved around the PSC’s reliance on an outdated 2000 policy to determine promotions, although the policy was revoked in 2014.

Justice Ramcharan ruled that the commission's failure to follow proper procedures under Regulation 18 of the Public Service Commission Regulations violated Radha Ragoonath’s rights to equality before the law and protection of the law under sections 4(b) and 4(d) of the Constitution.

He held that the commission was in error in believing that the 2000 policy was still in effect, adding that when appointments were made in 2019, there was no active merit list and the PSC failed to establish a proper framework for promotions.

Ragoonath, a temporary clerk 1 at the Ministry of Works and Transport, challenged the PSC’s decision to promote five officers ahead of her, despite her higher ranking on the 2011 order of merit

In her constitutional motion, her attorneys argued that the PSC's reliance on an expired merit list from 2011, rather than issuing a fresh vacancy notice and conducting a competitive process, violated the regulations.

According to Ragoonath, the 2011 list expired on December 12, 2015, so promotions in 2019 and 2020 were unlawful. She claims that the PSC failed to abide by regulations 12, 13, 14, and 18, which mandate a fair and merit-based promotion process.

She said despite her qualifications, the PSC promoted officers ranked lower than her on the 2011 list without explanation.

Her lawsuit said she repeatedly sought answers from the PSC, the ministry and the Director of Personnel Administration but was ignored. She also filed multiple freedom of information requests between 2000 and 2021.

The PSC’s response confirmed that the five officers were promoted using the 2011 list. It said officers were ranked on seniority rather than merit. This, Ragoonath argued, was contrary to regulation 18, which states that promotions should be based on a combination of merit, ability, and seniority.

In his ruling, Ramcharan noted that instead of creating a new merit list or developing an alternative transparent process, the PSC appointed officers based on seniority alone, rather than merit and ability, as required by law

In his ruling, Ramcharan said not only was the 2000 policy revoked, but it only stated those who acted for two years were to be considered for appointment.

“ It does not say that they are to be appointed. That policy was revoked and replaced with a policy that all officers who wished to be appointed to a post should apply.

“When the 2019 appointments were made, there was neither a merit list in operation, nor the 2000 policy. The commission, therefore, had to make appointments under regulation 18.

“The commission in wrongfully using the 2000 policy which was revoked, and further did not create an obligation to appoint,” he ruled.

Ramcharan also said the case was one fit for compensatory and vindicatory damages, adding that while it was not clear Ragoonath would have been appointed had the PSC complied with regulation 18, she stood a “good chance as she was above them on the merit list and the position is one where merit and ability takes precedence over seniority.”

He ordered $100,000 in compensatory damages; $120,000 in vindicatory damages, interest at 2.5 per cent from February 9, 2023 to February 26, 2025, when he delivered his ruling and costs for senior and junior counsel.

Anand Ramlogan, SC, Kent Samlal, Jared Jagroo and Aasha Ramlal represented Ragoonath.