A High Court Judge has strongly criticised the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) for its almost seven-year delay in considering the promotion of a teacher.
Justice Frank Seepersad issued the criticism yesterday as he partially upheld a judicial review lawsuit brought against the TSC and the Office of the Attorney General by Prakash Sugremsingh.
Justice Seepersad said: “If, as the evidence suggests, there exists at least a seven-year delay between the time one becomes qualified to be interviewed and when the interview is actually conducted, then such a scenario is completely unacceptable as it does not accord with good administration.”
In September 2000, Sugremsingh was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher III and was placed at Shiva Boys’ Hindu College in Penal.
By 2010, Sugremsingh obtained a Teacher’s Diploma and a Bachelor of Education (Secondary).
He applied to be promoted to the permanent position of Graduate Teacher III based on the qualifications set in an agreement with the Ministry of Education in October 2006.
After receiving no response, he was informed by a curriculum supervisor that he would have to complete a bridging programme as his degree was insufficient to be considered for promotion.
Although he completed the programme in 2017 and the ministry acknowledged that he had obtained the necessary qualifications, he was not invited by the TSC to be interviewed.
In May, last year, the commission claimed that Sugremsingh was promoted to the position of Teacher I (Secondary) with almost double the salary he received as an assistant teacher in 2010.
However, both the ministry and Sugremsingh claimed that they were never informed of the promotion. Sugremsingh also claimed that he never received the salary increase.
In determining the lawsuit, Justice Seepersad ruled that Sugremsingh did not have a legitimate expectation that he would be automatically promoted.
However, Justice Seepersad stated that the commission’s delay in interviewing Sugremsingh was unreasonable as he pointed out that it is currently interviewing candidates who qualified before him at a rate of five per month.
“Such a circumstance is cause for concern and should catalyse a clarion call for constitutional reform as it appears that the First Defendant (TSC) is no longer able to effectively and efficiently manage the hiring, promotion and disciplinary action over teachers,” he said.
He noted that the inefficiency of the commission has a major impact as more teachers are now required for the education system.
“The Teaching Service Commission plays a critical role in this Republic and vacancies within the school system should be filled without delay so as to ensure that the nation’s children get the best possible education,” he said.
Justice Seepersad also raised concern over the ministry not being informed of Sugremsingh’s alleged promotion in 2010.
“With distressing regularity, the right-hand does not know what the left hand is doing and regulatory and statutory bodies who, in the interest of good administration, are required to share information and work in tandem with each other, often appear to operate in silos,” he said.
Justice Seepersad ruled that Sugremsingh’s constitutional right to protection of the law was breached by the delay.
He gave the commission 90 days in which to interview him.
He also ordered the State to pay $30,000 in vindicatory damages for what transpired.
“The travesty meted out to the Claimant is exacerbated by the reality that a significant part of his career has passed while he operated like a nomad and soon he will be nearing the mandatory retirement age,” he said.
Justice Seepersad also ordered that the parties file evidence over Sugremsingh’s alleged 2010 promotion to determine if he is entitled to salary arrears for the past 14 years.
Sugremsingh was represented by Edwin Roopnarine, and Jayadevi Arjoon. The TSC and the AG’s Office was represented by Evanna Welch and Sara Muslim.