A police officer has lost his lawsuit challenging a decision not to promote him while he was on extended paid injury leave for over a decade.
Delivering a judgment, earlier this week, Justice Ricky Rahim dismissed the judicial review and constitutional lawsuit brought by PC Ah-Keel Alexander against the Office of the Commissioner of Police.
In 2009, Alexander successfully completed the promotional examination for the rank of corporal and was appointed to act in the position.
The following year, he passed the examination for the next rank of sergeant.
While on duty in August 2012, he sustained serious head and spinal injuries and was placed on injury leave with full pay.
In 2016, he appeared before the Promotion Advisory Board (PAB) to be interviewed for promotion to the rank of corporal and placed 328 out of 358 officers on a merit list.
Two years later, Alexander underwent a surgical procedure for his injury. He was assessed by the TTPS Medical Board, which deemed him unfit to return to active duty.
In 2021, Alexander was eventually cleared to return to work but he was restricted to light duties.
However, the T&T Police Service (TTPS) claimed that he failed to immediately resume duty and his salary was stopped.
Alexander filed the lawsuit alleging that while he was on injury leave he was bypassed for promotion in favour of colleagues that fell below him on the 2016 merit list.
He also identified two colleagues, who he claimed received their promotions while on extended sick leave during the same period as his.
In defence of the case, head of the TTPS Human Resource Branch Sherma Maynard-Wilson referred to an internal policy under which officers eligible for promotion, who are on sick or injury leave, do not receive their promotions until they resume duty.
She also stated that Alexander’s promotion would be retroactive when he returns to work.
In deciding the case, Justice Rahim noted that the purported policy was not covered under the Police Service Act or associated regulations.
However, he pointed out that the Police Commissioner had the discretion to decide on promotions after the PAB makes its recommendations, based on a number of factors including the demands on the TTPS.
“Being deemed suitable for promotion does not equate to a rule where one must as a matter of course be promoted off of a merit list,” Justice Rahim said.
“There are other considerations which sometimes arise and which must be considered by the ultimate decision maker,” he added.
He ruled that the discretion was properly applied in Alexander’s case.
“In other words, there lies no benefit to the service in promoting him while on sick/injury leave in that he will be unable to perform the duties of corporal to the benefit of the service,” he said.
He also pointed out that Alexander will not be deprived of his promotion as he will get it when he returns to work.
“There is, in terms, no real detriment or prejudice to be suffered by him,” he said.
He also ruled that one of the officers identified by Alexander, who was promoted in breach of the policy, was an anomaly.
Justice Rahim also criticised the TTPS for claiming that he refused to return to duty after being cleared by the TTPS Medical Board.
“He could not have reported for work if he had not been notified of the TTPS Medical Board, plain and simple. There is no evidence that he was in fact informed of their decision,” he said.
However, he ruled that Alexander’s constitutional rights to protection of the law and equality of treatment from a public authority were not breached.
As part of his judgment, Justice Rahim ordered Alexander to pay the legal costs for his failed case.
Alexander was represented by Kristy Mohan, while Coreen Findley, Nisa Simmons, and Lianne Thomas represented the State.