115 police constables’ promotion challenge dismissed by High Court

OVER 100 police constables have lost their legal challenge against the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General over promotions to the rank of corporal in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS).

Justice Margaret Mohammed rejected claims that the promotion process was unlawful, unconstitutional, or unfair. She ruled that the officers – 115 in all – were not entitled to retroactive promotions, damages, or any other relief.

The officers were among thousands of constables interviewed by the Promotions Advisory Board (PAB) for promotion to Corporal in 2023. Although they had all passed the qualifying examinations between 2010 and 2020, they were not promoted under Departmental Order No. 124 of 2023, which published the initial Order of Merit List (OML), nor under a revised OML on January 18, 2024.

They challenged the promotion of 29 other officers, arguing that those officers were promoted ahead of them despite ranking lower, and claimed that errors in the initial OML tainted the entire process.

The officers brought a mixed claim, seeking judicial review and constitutional redress, including declarations that the promotions were unlawful, an order compelling their retroactive promotion to September 29, 2023.

The officers contended that the initial OML contained significant errors and anomalies. They said the situation prompted freedom of information requests for individual scores, which were later denied. They also relied on media reports suggesting officers were wrongly promoted.

The state, through an affidavit from Deputy Commissioner of Police Junior Benjamin, explained that more than 2,200 constables were eligible for interview and that promotions were based strictly on ranking on the OML and the number of available vacancies. He acknowledged errors in the initial OML, which led to an internal audit and the issuance of a revised OML.

As a result of the audit, additional officers who had been wrongly excluded were promoted, bringing the total number of promotions to 933 and creating an “over-strength” of corporals. However, officers already promoted could not be demoted, as there was no statutory power to do so outside of disciplinary proceedings.

In her ruling, Justice Mohammed rejected the argument that the officers’ legitimate expectation had been breached. She found that promotions in the TTPS are based on ranking on the OML and the availability of vacancies, and that this established practice had been followed.

“In the instant case, the established process for the promotion of officers in the second division of the TTPS from the rank of constable to corporal was based on ranking on an OML. This established practice was the promise which the applicants relied on.

“The first respondent acted on this established practice …The applicants were not overlooked as the first respondent acted within the established practice of promoting the officers based on the initial OML and later on the revised OML, subject to the availability of vacancies.

“For these reasons, the applicants failed to discharge their burden of proving that the first respondent failed to act on the established practice for making the said promotions.”

The judge also held that the 29 officers complained of all ranked higher than the applicants on the initial OML and were therefore lawfully promoted. Even after errors were corrected, the applicants remained outside the number of available vacancies.

“There is no automatic right to promotion,” the judge also noted, adding that the applicants failed to prove they were overlooked or treated unfairly.

On the issue of whether the commissioner acted unreasonably by failing to revoke the promotions of the 29 officers, the court ruled that she had no statutory authority to do so.

Justice Mohammed held that rescinding those promotions would effectively amount to a demotion, which is only permitted under the law following disciplinary proceedings. In those circumstances, the commissioner’s decision was found to be reasonable and rational.

The court also ruled that the applicants’ constitutional claims were an abuse of process. Justice Mohammed said constitutional relief was not available where adequate alternative remedies exist, unless there are special features.

In this case, the officers had already pursued judicial review, which was the appropriate avenue to challenge the decision of a public authority, the judge said.

Justice Mohammed further ruled that the court had no power to order retroactive promotions. Under the law, appointments can only be backdated to when an officer actually performed the duties of the higher office, and there was no evidence that any of the applicants had acted as corporals since September 2023.

With the substantive claims dismissed, the court also ruled that the applicants were not entitled to damages and made no order in their favour.

Kiel Taklalsingh, Keron Ramkhalwhan, Rhea Khan and Shalini Sankar represented the officers, while Ronnelle Hinds, Dhalia Richardson, Janine Joseph, Kristyn Lewis and Simon Branellec represented the CoP and the AG.