Rajkumar Ramroop v The Public Service Commission and The Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: TT 2026 HC 76
• Year: 2026
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2021-00617

Rajkumar Ramroop

and

The Public Service Commission and The Attorney General

Mohammed, J.

Suit No.: CV2021-00617

High Court

Mr. Navindra Ramnanan and Mr. Ricky Pandohee for the Claimant.

Ms. Karlene Seenath, Ms. Nicol Yee Fung and Ms. Victoria Armorer, instructed by Ms. Amrita Ramsook for the Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mohammed, J.

1 This case before the Court relates to the Claimant's challenges to the First Defendant's decision not to promote him to the substantive post of Prisons Supervisor (Grade 3).

2 On 16 February 2021, the Claimant filed an ex parte Notice of Application seeking leave of this Court to apply for Judicial Review made pursuant to Part 56, Rule 3 of the Civil Proceedings Rules 1998 (as amended). The application was accompanied by the Claimant's Affidavit, sworn on the same date.

3 On 21 February 2021, this Court granted leave to the Claimant ex parte to apply for judicial review. The Court also granted permission to the Claimant to use, in support of the Fixed Date Claim, the Affidavit of the Claimant, sworn on 16 February 2021. The Court further ordered that a Case Management Conference be fixed for 22 April 2021.

4 On 15 March 2021, the Claimant filed his Fixed Date Claim Form seeking the following reliefs:

• i. A Declaration that the Claimant was treated unfairly, contrary to the principles of natural justice and to Section 20 of the Judicial Review Act Chapter 7:08;

• ii. An Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the First Defendant not to promote the Claimant;

• iii. An Order directing the First Defendant to reconsider the Claimant's claim for promotion to the office of Prisons Supervisor with retroactive effect and in accordance with the findings of this Court;

• iv. A Declaration that the First Defendant has acted irrationally, illegally, unfairly and unreasonably in refusing to promote the Claimant;

• v. A Declaration that the continuing failure and/or refusal of the First Defendant to promote the Claimant to the office of Prisons Supervisor is in breach of his right to equal treatment by a public authority as guaranteed by Section 4(d) of the Constitution;

• vi. An Order that the First Defendant do promote the Claimant to the next available vacant office of Prisons Supervisor with retroactive effect and without loss of seniority;

• vii. An Order that the First Defendant do pay financial compensation to the Claimant by way of redress pursuant to Section 14 of the Constitution for treating him differently compared to other similarly circumstanced officers who were promoted;

• viii. An Order pursuant to Section 8(1)(d) of the Judicial Review Act directing the First Defendant to reserve one existing vacancy for the office of Prisons Supervisor to which retroactive promotion is possible, pending the hearing and determination of this matter;

• ix. Costs;

• x. Such further or other relief as this Court may deem fit.

5 On 22 April 2021, the first Case Management Conference was held. The Court gave directions and granted an interim order that one existing vacancy of the position of Prisons Supervisor be reserved, to which retroactive promotion is possible pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.

6 On 23 August 2021, the Defendants filed the Affidavit of Rodney Mohammed, Senior Human Resource Adviser (Acting) of the First Defendant, in response to the Claimant's Affidavit.

7 The Claimant filed his Affidavit in Reply on 14 September 2021.

8 Thereafter, written submissions were filed by the Claimant and Defendants on 08 April 2022. The Claimant filed submissions in reply on 07 June 2022, and the Defendants filed reply submissions on 09 June 2022.

9 Upon my consideration of the Claimant's Claim, the affidavit evidence adduced and the submissions of the parties, the decision of the Court is hereunder stated.

II. BACKGROUND

UNDISPUTED FACTS

10 The Claimant, Mr. Rajkumar Ramroop, was a public servant employed in the Trinidad and Tobago Prisons Service for over 26 years. He held the substantive position of Prisons Officer II.

11 In or about 2008, the Claimant was assessed for promotion to the office of Prisons Supervisor under the promotional assessment period 2008–2010. Following this assessment, the Commission established an Order-of-Merit List in 2014 (“the 2014 OML”), which was valid for a period of two years. The Claimant was placed on the 2014 OML at position number 86.

12 On 07 January 2016, the Commissioner of Prisons wrote to the Director of Personnel Administration, noting that the 2014 OML for the office of Prisons Supervisor was due to expire on 24 February 2016. The Commissioner requested that assessments be conducted for officers to be promoted to various offices, including Prisons Supervisor. The Commissioner submitted a list of officers to be assessed for promotion to the office of Prisons Supervisor, which list included the Claimant's name.

13 Between January 2016 and July 2019, the commencement of the assessment exercise for promotion to the office of Prisons Supervisor was delayed due to intervening events, namely judicial review proceedings instituted by other Prisons Officers in CV2018-03511, Lyndon Ramanan and Others v. Public Service Commission, which matter was decided by Kokaram, J. (as he then was) on 18 June 2019, as well as consultative meetings with Prisons Service Executives and the Prisons Officers Association.

14 On 21 June 2019, the Claimant retired compulsorily from the Trinidad and Tobago Prisons Service pursuant to Section 14A (1) of the Prison Service Act, Chapter 13:02, having attained the compulsory retirement age.

15 On 16 July 2019, the Commission extended the 2014 OML and promoted four officers, namely Winfield Walker, Claudius Collins, Dexter Francis and Ted Victor, retroactively to the office of Prisons Supervisor with effect from dates ranging from 17 June 2016 to 20 June 2016. These four officers held positions numbers 70 to 75 on the 2014 OML.

16 On 17 October 2019 and 18 October 2019, the assessment exercise for promotion to the office of Prisons Supervisor for the promotional period 2011–2014 was conducted. One hundred and eighty-three officers were assessed. The Claimant achieved 80 points and was listed at position number 3 on the preliminary Marks List.

17 At its meeting on 17 March 2020, the Commission accepted the Report of the assessment exercise and the Marks List for the office of Prisons Supervisor. However, the Commission decided that since the Claimant had retired prior to the commencement of the assessment exercise in October 2019, he no longer fell under the purview of the Commission.

18 By Memorandum dated 27 May 2020, the Commission informed the Commissioner of Prisons that, despite receiving the recommendation prior to the Claimant's retirement from the Public Service, the Claimant had since retired and no longer fell under the purview of the Commission. In the circumstances, the Commission was unable to accede to the recommendation.

19 By letter dated 15 June 2020, the Commissioner of Prisons informed the Claimant that he had scored 80 points and occupied position number 3 on the Order-of-Merit List for the office of Prisons Supervisor. However, the Commissioner also conveyed that the Commission had indicated that the Claimant no longer fell under the purview of the Commission.

20 On 07 July 2020, the Claimant, through his Attorney at Law, requested that the Commission provide a statement of reasons for its decision not to promote him pursuant to Section 16 of the Judicial Review Act.

21 By letter dated 17 November 2020, the Commission provided its statement of reasons, informing the Claimant that he had retired from the Public Service prior to the commencement of the assessment exercise and promotion process and thus no longer fell under the purview of the Commission. The Commission further stated that the assessment exercise formed only part of the promotion process, which was still ongoing and that promotions could only be made subsequent to the finalisation of the promotion process in accordance with Regulation 168(2) to (6) of the Public Service Commission Regulations (“PSCR”).

22 On 09 November 2020, the Claimant's Attorney at Law issued a Pre-Action Protocol Letter to the Commission. On 27 January 2021, the Commission reiterated its decision not to promote the Claimant.

23 These proceedings were thereafter instituted on 16 February 2021.

THE CLAIMANTS' CASE

24 The Claimant asserts that he was eligible to be promoted to the office of Prisons Supervisor when promotions were made in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2019 pursuant to the PSCR, without the need to sit an examination. However, he was bypassed by less qualified and/or junior persons in the public service.

25 The Claimant contends that he was assessed for the promotional assessment period 2008–2010 and was placed on the 2014 OML along with officers Winfield Walker, Claudius Collins, Dexter Francis and Ted Victor. The 2014 OML was valid for two years and expired on 25 February 2016. However, the Commission extended this OML on various occasions to promote a number of persons, including those who were on pre-retirement and those who had already retired, with retroactive effect.

26 The Claimant asserts that on 07 January 2016, the Commissioner of Prisons recommended that he and other officers, including Winfield Walker, Claudius Collins, Dexter Francis and Ted Victor, be assessed for promotion to the office of Prisons Supervisor as the 2014 OML was about to expire. The Claimant submits that this letter was not a recommendation for assessment but rather a recommendation for promotion.

27 The Claimant submits that while the new promotional assessment for the period 2011–2014 was in progress, the Commissioner of Prisons and the Commission, being fully cognisant that there were 27 vacant positions of Prisons Supervisor as at...