Merit applies in Public Service promotion

THE EDITOR: The editorial in the Newsday of August 23, 2004  argued against seniority as the criteria for promotion.The editorial concluded by pleading that  seniority  be the deciding criterion  only when  (Police) officers being considered  for promotion have equally satisfied  the merit and performance criteria. I am delighted to advise  that this has been the case in law since 1969 — notwithstanding a popular misconception to the contrary. As we all know the issue of promotion is a constitutional function of the various Service Commissions, creatures of the Constitution. As such they are subject to the principles and  policies  embodied in the  Constitution and have a duty  to ensure that these are upheld — to do otherwise  brings the Constitution into disrepute, which should be avoided at all costs as the Constitution forms the  bedrock of our governance  framework and by extension, societal organisation.   

This means that the conduct of all persons and institutions  that derive their being from the Constitution ( including all public officers, teachers, civil servants and police officers) must be such so as not to bring the Constitution (and the principles upon which it is founded ) into disrepute. Such persons and bodies  have a high onus of responsibility to discharge to the people in  the course of their operations. For example, the Commissions as constitutional institutions must ensure that  their operations are effective and efficient, reflecting the principles of good governance (ie transparency and accountability) and the principles of natural justice- ( ie fair play — giving all parties a chance to be heard). Underlying all  this is the serving of the public interest (not necessarily those of vested political or economic agendae). The same comment applies to ministries and departments, Cabinet, Parliament, constitutional office holders, et al.

The preamble to the Constitution actually elaborates a vision for our society that the constitutional bodies should take into account  in their operations and in that vision, amonst other things, is the affirmation of the merit principle — “ there should be opportunity for advancement on the basis of merit, ability and integrity”. ( Lines18 and 19 of the preamble to the Constitution.) When one takes into account the preamble and the regulations of the various service commissions together it is clear that the merit principle is affirmed. Seniority is only one of the critera to be taken into account when considering a public officers ‘ promotion. It only becomes the defining criteria “in the  event of an equality of efficiency of two or more officers”. ( See reg 20 (1) of the Police Service Commission Regulations. and 18 (1) of the  Public Service Commission Regulations  (which also serves as the Teaching Service Commission Regulations, by adoption by the Teaching Service Commission).

For  public officers  who fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, regulation 18 of the Public Service Commission Regulations  treats with seniority in greater detail. It provides that where promotion is to an office that involves work of a routine nature, greater weight attaches to seniority. What is routine depends on the circumstances — in todays work environment where people are increasingly required to be proactive and multi-skilled, this qualification may become increasingly irrelevant. However  the same regulation also states that the Commission shall atttach greater weight to “merit and  ability where promotion is to an office that involves work of  progressively greater and   higher responsiblity and initiative than is required for an office (where the work is of a routine nature). It is interesting to note that this qualification never appeared in the Police Service Commission Regulations — an implicit acceptance that the work of a police  officer is not of a routine nature. However institutions do not walk down  the streets, people do.

CARLA HERBERT
Federation Park