Judge chides PSC for delays

THE Police Service Commission (PSC) must inform officers within a reasonable time why they cannot or are not being considered for promotion. This was the order by a High Court judge yesterday, who also ordered the State to pay costs to a policeman who brought up a case against the PSC for a delay in answering his query on why he was by-passed for promotion. Justice Carlton Best found that the PSC responded to Cpl Rai Ramrattan’s query, only after he filed a lawsuit against them. A policeman for the past 22 years, Ramrattan received a letter on April 24 2003 from the then Commissioner of Police, informing him that he had been considered for promotion. According to the judgment, the letter also informed Ramrattan that he could not be recommended for promotion because he had taken 813 days extended sick-leave. The letter advised the policeman to make representation within 14 days on the matter. On April 25, Ramrattan wrote to the commission seeking an explanation.

He received no reply, except a letter from the PSC which informed him that he had indeed been by-passed for promotion. In a six-page judgment, Justice Best stated that all he had to consider was whether there was an unreasonable delay by the PSC in informing Ramrattan of the outcome of his representation on the issue of his extended sick-leave. However, Best stated that the response from the PSC, which was only to inform Ramrattan that he had been bypassed and which did not answer his query, was made only after the policeman filed for judicial review. This was in August 2003, after Ramrattan was granted leave by a High Court judge to review the decision of the PSC in bypassing him for promotion. The judge stated that it was hoped that in the future, as a requirement of fairness, the PSC would respond to an officer’s representation without unreasonable delay. Attorney Anand Ramlogan, instructed by Narendra Lalbeharry, represented Ramrattan.