(Trinidad Express) A group of 30 police constables have emerged victorious in a judicial review claim against the Office of the Police Commissioner and the Promotion Advisory Board.
Delivering judgment in their favour yesterday was Justice Westmin James, who declared there was an undue delay in the officers being considered for promotion even though they were all successful in their promotional examinations.
The judge also held that the decision of the Commissioner of Police and/or the Board to utilise a particular Departmental Order in the assessment and promotion of the officers was unlawful, illegal, irrational, procedurally improper, null void and of no effect.
Further, Justice James directed that the Board compile and submit to the Commissioner of Police a revised Order of Merit List using the proper criteria to reflect the proper ranking of the Claimants within three months of his order.
This must be published in a Departmental Order as required by Regulation 20 of the Police Service Regulations to allow the claimants to be properly ranked for when there are other vacancies, the judge ordered.
Essentially, the judge found that the utilisation of Departmental Order 93 dated August 24, 2021, to consider the promotion of the officers was unlawful.
No interviews
In their claim, which was mainly outlined in the affidavit of WPC Jennifer Sanchez, the officers similarly claimed they were all successful in their promotional examination, yet they were never invited by the Board for interviews for promotion to the rank of corporal.
Sanchez stated in her affidavit that she became aware of Departmental Order No. 93 through its circulation in a WhatsApp group chat to which she belongs.
The Order was issued by the Commissioner’s Office on July 29, 2021.
In summary, Sanchez stated that she noticed that the Departmental Order changed the performance appraisal criteria from those which existed in previous years. It purported to create a new points system that was at odds with what obtained previously when she and the other claimants wrote their promotional examinations.
Yet, they were being denied consideration for promotion based on the new departmental order.
The ruling
In his ruling, the judge admitted he was stuck within a rock and a hard place.
He said if the promotions of other officers under Departmental Order 93 were to be invalidated, it would affect hundreds of officers, including those who were not party to the case.
“On the other hand, failing to rectify the wrongful promotions would disenfranchise officers who should have been promoted but were not.
“They would be disenfranchised from not only promotion but being able to act in higher positions and lose seniority to persons who may have been wrongly promoted over them. It also affects the morale of the officers.
He said if the court were to set aside the promotion process for those officers’ it will affect those persons’ rights, “some of who were not party to these proceedings all without giving a hearing to those who may be affected by the change to state their case and/or to resist this order.”
Promotions have already been made under the departmental order, and the entitlements of those others who have been promoted would be adversely affected by any order to that effect, Justice James stated.
He added that “this state of confusion and inconsistency that a retroactive promotion will create is contrary to good administration.”
In the end however, the judge ordered that a revised Order of Merit should be compiled, using the proper criteria, and excluding those officers already promoted.
“This list would rank the claimants correctly for future promotions. The claimants who were unjustly denied promotion should also be awarded damages to compensate for their loss of opportunity and seniority.
“This remedy, while imperfect, would address the harm caused by the original error. The Court is of the belief that there is no perfect solution to this unfortunate series of events and seeks to fashion the best remedy in the circumstances,” stated the judge.
