Ex-teacher loses before Law Lords

Sahadeo Maharaj had taken the TSC to court after he was overlooked for promotion to vice-principal. But the Law Lords, in a six-page judgment yesterday, ruled against Maharaj.

According to the Law Lords, the unfairness of which Maharaj complained, may well attract sympathy.

“It is regrettable that he was so sadly misled for so long by the Commission’s inaccurate record-keeping. But the law cannot provide him with the remedy which he seeks, to which he is plainly not entitled on the facts,” the Law Lords added.

The Privy Council dismissed Maharaj’s appeal and also ordered that he pay costs to the TSC. The Board comprised Lords Hoffmann, Hope, Hutton, Brown and Mance. Dr Fenton Ramsahoye SC and Anand Ramlogan appeared for Maharaj.

Maharaj entered the teaching service in May 1960. On December 10, 2001, as he was nearing retirement, the principal of the Corinth Teachers’ Training College went on pre-retirement leave. The vice-principal was appointed to act as principal. That left a vacancy for the post of vice-principal, which had to be filled by a Teacher II.

Maharaj had been a Teacher II for many years and he expected to be appointed. But it went instead to Martin Jones who entered the teaching service in September 1972. This was because his position was above that of Maharaj on the seniority list.

Maharaj filed for judicial review of the decision to appoint Jones as he believed that there was an error in the entry of the date of his appointment as a Teacher II on the seniority list. The date of his appointment was shown on the list as November 9, 1976. The date of Jones’ appointment was October 4, 1976.

Maharaj contended that he was led to believe that the date of his appointment was September 9, 1976. If it were so, he would have been senior to Jones.

The case was heard before Justice Allan Mendonca who heard evidence on the issue as to which of the two dates was the correct one. The judge held that the decision of the TSC to confirm Maharaj’s appointment with effect of September 9, 1976, was based on erroneous information. Despite the error made by the TSC, the judge dismissed the judicial review case.