Harinath Ramoutar v Commissioner of Prisons and another

For a purely acting appointment that merely fills in for a permanent office-holder, eligible in Regulation 26(1)(a) is a threshold condition of appointability, not a finding of suitability. It ordinarily covers existing prison-service officers capable of performing the duties. Seniority is the general rule, although the Public Service Commission may depart from it for sufficient relevant reasons. It must first consider the qualities of the most senior eligible officer. Criteria for permanent promotion, or for an acting appointment intended to lead to permanence, do not govern a temporary stand-in. A job description agreed after consultation has no statutory force and cannot make a degree an automatic threshold requirement. Judicial review ensures that the statutory decision-maker performs its function; it does not permit the court to reassess candidates’ merits.

The appellant, a Prison Officer II, sought judicial review after the Commissioner of Prisons declined to recommend him for a temporary acting appointment as Chief Prisons Welfare Officer because he lacked a social-work degree. The Public Service Commission adopted that threshold approach and appointed another officer without assessing the appellant’s merits. Pemberton J and the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago refused leave, although both courts examined the merits in a rolled-up manner. The central issue was whether the degree requirement made the appellant ineligible under Regulation 26(1)(a), or whether the Commission had to consider him under the seniority-based regime for purely acting appointments.

The Board allowed the appeal and granted leave to apply for judicial review.

1. Meaning of eligibility. Regulation 26 establishes a general rule favouring appointment of the senior officer eligible for a purely acting appointment. In Regulation 26(1)(a), eligible means a threshold condition of appointability, not suitability. It refers to existing prison officers capable of performing the duties of the higher office. ([12]–[14], [18])
2. Discretion and seniority. The general rule may be displaced by relevant considerations, and the Commission has a wide discretion to decide whether departure is justified. That discretion cannot be exercised without considering the result of applying the seniority rule and, at minimum, the qualities of the most senior eligible officer. ([12], [18])
3. Distinct appointment regimes. The criteria in Regulations 18 and 172 govern permanent promotions and, through Regulation 24, acting appointments intended as a prelude to permanent appointment. They do not govern temporary acting appointments that merely stand in for a permanent office-holder. ([8]–[10], [15])
4. Job specification. The job description had no statutory status. Section 15 of the Prison Service Act required consultation and negotiation about terms and conditions of appointment; it did not make the document binding on the Public Service Commission. In any event, threshold eligibility required an objectively verifiable test, whereas the document largely described subjective qualities requiring judgment. ([16]–[17])
5. Application and relief. The Commissioner and Commission wrongly treated the absence of a degree as conclusive threshold ineligibility. They therefore failed to consider the appellant’s merits, apply the seniority rule, or decide whether to depart from it. The courts would not reassess the merits, but were required to ensure that the statutory functions were performed. As the acting appointment had expired, the appropriate relief was a declaration that the Commission had acted unlawfully. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant’s costs. ([20]–[21])

1. Privy Council: The Board allowed the appeal, granted leave to apply for judicial review, and made a declaration of unlawfulness. It declined to quash or remit the decision because the acting appointment had expired.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago: Refused leave to apply for judicial review, while treating the matter as a rolled-up application and examining the merits.
3. High Court: Pemberton J refused leave to apply for judicial review.