Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The State has been ordered to pay compensation to a retired teacher, who the Ministry of Education delayed reassessing for promotion when she learned she was not promoted almost five years after she was officially informed.
Last Friday, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad upheld Deborah Cassim’s case over breaches of her constitutional rights.
While Justice Seepersad ruled that Cassim is entitled to compensation for the breaches, he did not quantify such and referred that aspect to a High Court Master to assess at a later date.
Cassim joined the teaching service in 1990 as a primary school teacher. She completed her Teachers’ Diploma in 1993 and a Certificate Course in Physical Education from the University of the West Indies (UWI) in 2009. Cassim then went on to pursue a Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Educational Services from the University of the Southern Caribbean (USC).
Before completing the degree, Cassim applied to be promoted and transferred to a secondary school. In 2012, she received a letter from the ministry indicating she had been promoted to Teacher III and assigned to the Malabar Secondary School. She took up duties at the school but was forced to constantly follow up with the ministry as her salary was not increased.
In 2017, an auditor assigned to the school informed her that she remained a Teacher I despite the previous correspondence.
Cassim made repeated attempts to have the ministry reassess her based on her qualifications but the process was delayed as her documents were reportedly misplaced.
In 2023, she was informed that the criteria for promotion had been changed in 2019 and requested detailed transcripts related to her qualifications.
She eventually retired last year.
Through her lawyers, led by Anand Ramlogan SC, of Freedom Law Chambers, Cassim pursued litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking information relative to her promotion and those of colleagues with similar qualifications who received promotions.
In the lawsuit, Cassim’s lawyers claimed that she would have been promoted had her documents been properly assessed.
“It was clear, however, that due to the bureaucracy and maladministration, her documents were in fact not processed in a timely manner in consequence of which she was not reassessed and promoted despite being similarly circumstanced with her colleagues,” her lawyers said.
They also claimed that she would have been entitled to a waiver of the new promotion criteria afforded to her colleagues.
“It is clear that the Claimant was treated unfairly, arbitrarily, irrationally, and unequally as her colleagues,” they said.
They claimed that Cassim suffered financial distress as a result of the delay as she was the sole breadwinner in her family and had to pay an increased mortgage after separating from her husband.
Through the lawsuit, Cassim was seeking the difference in salary she would have received had she been reassessed in a timely manner.
Cassim was also represented by Jayanti Lutchmedial, Ganesh Saroop, Jared Jagroo and Natasha Bisram.
