REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF...

of 27

REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

SAN FERNANDO

CLAIM No. CV 2007-01256

BETWEEN

BALRAM SINGH

Claimant

AND

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Defendant

Before The Honourable Madam Justice Pemberton

Appearances:

For the Claimant: Mr. A. Ramlogan instructed by Ms. C. Bhagwandeen

For the Defendant: Mr. R. Martineau S.C. leading Ms. A. Ramsaran and Ms. P. Jadoo instructed by Ms. L. Gray

JUDGMENT [1] INTRODUCTION

This case concerns an interpretation of the PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATIONS with respect to Acting Appointments. Such appointments refer to “the temporary appointment of an officer to a higher office or otherwise, whether that office is vacant or not”.

[2] In 1989, Mr Balram Singh (“Mr Singh”) was appointed to the position of Motor Vehicle Officer 1 (“MVO 1”) in the Ministry of Works and Transport Licensing Division. This was a temporary appointment on a “month to month basis”. By letter dated May 31st 2005, Mr Singh was informed that he was entered onto the permanent establishment with effect from 11th August 1992. His

of 27

advent into the Public Service of Trinidad and Tobago therefore dated from 11th August 1992. It is from this date that any rights to seniority and pension naturally would flow.

[3] On two occasions, 4th July 2002 and 14th October 2003 Mr Singh applied for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector 1 (“MVI 1”). He was not successful. Other persons were successful and were given promotions and acting appointments to this post. The Public Service Commission (PSC) stated that Mr Singh’s name was not on any of the merit lists for promotion or acting appointments at either of the dates that he applied for promotion. This, they say, was the reason why he was not appointed. His name appeared on the merit list to be considered for appointment to act as MVI 1 as at September 20th 2007. Thereafter on 16th October 2007 Mr Singh was appointed to act as MVI 1.

[4] Both parties accept that Mr Singh’s requests for acting in the higher positions were not made as preludes for promotion to that higher office, as distinct from acting appointments made as a prelude for appointments to the higher position.

[5] LAW

Regulation 26 of the PSC REGULATIONS1 provides for acting appointments made in a higher position, but not as a prelude to promotion to a substantive position. As a general rule, seniority in the Ministry/Department is the guiding rule determining preference for such acting appointments. The individual under consideration must not only be eligible but also be able to assume and discharge the responsibilities of the office to which he is appointed to act.

1 Regulation 26(1) of the PSC Regulations reads:

“Where an acting appointment falls to be made otherwise than as a prelude to a substantive appointment, the officer appointed shall –

(a) as a general rule be the senior officer in the Ministry or Department eligible for such acting appointment;

(b) assume and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office to which he is appointed to act”.

of 27

[6] EVIDENCE

The posts of MVO and MVI carry two distinct and different job functions and qualifications. This was clearly recognized by Mr Singh through exhibit “BS2” The organizational Charts for the “MVO Stream” and that for the “MVI Stream” together with two documents explaining in each instance Kind of Work, Distinguishing Features of Work, Examples of Work, Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities, Minimum Experience and Training and Necessary Special Requirement. Each differs in material respects2. Mr Singh asserted that he acted as Driving Licensing Examiner.

[7] Further, at the time of Mr Singh’s requests for promotion to the stream of MVI 1 in 2002 and 2003 two factors operated against him:

(1) He was not on the permanent establishment;

(2) He has not shown that he possessed the necessary skills and qualifications for the post at the relevant times.

Another factor which he palpably failed to show was that none of the persons complained against were junior to him either in terms of dates of permanent appointments to the public service or possession of necessary skills and qualifications.

[8] CONCLUSION

Even though Regulation 26 speaks to seniority in the Ministry/Department, one has to employ a purposive construction when considering the application so as to give effect to the Regulation. The positions of MVO I and MVI are not interchangeable. Seniority must be read in the context of the entire regulation. In other words mere seniority in the Department is not enough. The interpretation must be coloured by the other requirements which I should call:

(a) suitability for the position referred to as eligibility; and

(b) possessing the ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the higher office.

2 See Appendix 1

of 27

Mr Singh has not asserted that the skill set and qualifications of MVO and MVI are the same or even that the designations are interchangeable. In fact his evidence refutes that assertion. I therefore find that they are not. Therefore one cannot simply jump streams on the basis of seniority alone. That is not the only criteria. Mr Singh therefore cannot succeed in this application.

[9] COSTS

Costs follow the event. Mr Singh must therefore pay the assessed costs of this matter.

[10] BACKGROUND

By letter dated 16th August 1989, Mr Singh was appointed to the position of MVO I (Temporary). At that time the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION made appointments to the service on a Temporary basis, with the applicants expecting that their positions would be made permanent. Mr Singh was not disappointed and by letter of 31st May 2005, that temporary appointment was made permanent and retroactive to 11th August 1992.

[11] As time marched on, Mr Singh decided to make an application to the Commission for appointment for promotion to the post of MVI 1. He was not considered. He renewed his application with the same result. Mr Singh brought this action to impugn this last decision.

There are two legs of this case, Mr Balram Singh’s own ability to sustain this action and discrimination.

[12] MR. SINGH’S CASE

(1) ABILITY TO SUSTAIN THIS ACTION

On 4th July 2002, Mr. Singh submitted a form application for promotion to the position of MVI 1.

This did not meet with success. On 14th October 2003 Mr Singh again submitted a completed application form for the promotion to the position, which application was again denied.

[13] By letter dated 31st May 2005 Mr. Singh was informed that he was to be appointed permanently to the post of MVO 1. This appointment was made retroactive to 11th August 1992. He was placed on

two (2) years’ probation. By letter dated 21st September 2005, Mr. Singh was preferred for an acting appointment in the post of MVO 11. This letter made it abundantly clear that such

of 27

appointment was not to be construed as providing any future claim to promotion to the substantive position.

[14] Mr. Singh then exchanged a vast amount of correspondence to the PSC expressing his discontent with their decision to bypass him for the acting position of MVI 1. By letter dated 21st September 2006, the PSC indicated that Mr. Singh was not considered for the post because of the date on which he attained the necessary qualifications.

[15] DISCRIMINATION

Mr Singh alleges that several officers who were junior to him were preferred for acting appointments. He alleges that as at 29th September 2003, he had attained the necessary qualifications for the post of MVI 1. He acquired the National Examinations Council Craft Certificate in Accounts and General Craft and Auto and Diesel Craft in December 2001 and 2002 respectively “thus complying” with the qualification requirement.

[16] Mr Singh then lists ten (10) officers as those junior to him who were appointed to act as MVI 1. Mr Singh wrote letters to the Permanent Secretary dated 16th September 2004; 6th October 2004 and 9th March 2005 informing of his desire to be considered for an acting appointment and the fact that those junior to him had been preferred to acting appointments. In all of these letters, Mr Singh recognized his temporary status.

[17] Mr Singh eventually received correspondence dated 31st May 2005 confirming him on the permanent establishment retroactive to 11th August 1992.

[18] On 12th December 2005 Mr Singh made his dissatisfaction known to the Public Service Commission. Finally on 21st September 2006 the Director of Public Administration (DPA) wrote to Mr Singh’s Attorneys in the following terms:

“the office of MVI 1 (the prospective post) is the entry-level position for the MVI stream and, in the absence of an Order-of-Merit-List for the office, qualified officers in the Licensing Division are recommended for acting appointment as MVI 1 on the basis of date of qualifications.

of 27

The officers to whom reference was made in your letters, satisfied the requirements of the office of MVI 1 before Mr Singh and as such they were recommended for acting appointment in the office ahead of him. Mr Singh would be considered for acting appointment as a MVI 1 on the basis of the date of his qualifications, pending the establishment of an Order-of-Merit-List for the office”.

[19] This did not meet with Mr Singh’s satisfaction. His Attorneys made requests under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOI), which were complied with. The results of this enquiry appear as Appendix II.

This deepened his feelings that he had been discriminated against, since he was of the view that the officers listed as Temporary or Acting in the position of MVI 1 were junior to him.

[20] His letter of complaint fell on deaf ears. Mr Singh complains that as a result of “the action and/or conduct of the officials at the Ministry of Works and Transport and/or the PSC, my career has been adversely affected and I have suffered loss. I have lost acting allowances for the respective offices, the opportunity to be considered for promotions to a superior office with the benefit of acting experience in same (which is an obvious competitive edge when it comes to promotion), valuable training opportunities and a better salary package and benefits by virtue of the denial of promotion and acting appointments”.

Paragraph 27 reads:

“I have suffered great distress and anxiety because of these events. I am a public officer with seventeen (17) years of service and I feel that I have been treated unfairly and unequally. It has caused me great discomfort and unease and de-motivated me greatly”.

[21] Mr Singh therefore caused this present action to be filed seeking the following relief:

1. A declaration that the policy and/or decision of the PSC to use the date of an officer’s qualification for the office of Motor Vehicle Inspector 1 (“the said office”) as the basis for making acting appointments to the said office is illegal and ultra vires the PSC Regulations.

of 27

2. An order remitting this matter back to the PSC to consider and/or reconsider the decision to bypass the Claimant’s in favour of junior officers in accordance with the findings of the court.

3. A declaration that the PSC has breached and/or violated Regulation 26 of the PSC Regulations.

4. An Order of certiorari to remove into this honourable court and quash the decision of the PSC to bypass the Claimant for acting appointment in favour of junior officers.

5. A declaration that the Claimant has been treated unfairly and in breach of the principles of natural justice contrary to section 21 of the Judicial Review Act.

6. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled and/or eligible to be considered by the PSC for acting appointment to the said office.

[22] THE PSC’s EVIDENCE

Ms Gloria Edwards-Joseph, the DPA sought to counter Mr Singh’s allegations.

The DPA’s case is set out below:

(5) The Claimant is a Motor Vehicle Officer 1.

(6) The Claimant was appointed to act in the position of MVO 11 from April 28th 2005 to December 6th 2005. At that time he held the substantive post of MVO 1 and was the most senior officer in that stream of the organizational structure of the Transport Division. The Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) has no record of the Applicant being appointed to act in the post of Driving Licensing Examiner and accordingly say that he was not so appointed.

(7) The Claimant’s application dated 4th July 2002 for promotion to the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the post”) was received by the Service Commissions Department and placed on file. The

of 27

application was an unsolicited one, not having been sent in response to a Circular Memorandum advertising the post.

(8) Further, the Claimant did not satisfy the minimum training requirements of the post, which inter alia required “a full technological certificate in automobile engineering from City and Guild” or an equivalent combination of experience and training as prescribed. The Claimant was never informed of this as it is not the practice of the Service Commissions Department to inform unsolicited applicants of their failure to satisfy the requirements of the post. The position of Motor Vehicle Inspector 1 was in a different stream from that of Motor Vehicle Officer 1.

(9) In preparation for appointments to the post, the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Works was requested to furnish an updated list of officers of the Transport Division who were qualified for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector 1 (“B.S.4”).

(10) By Memorandum dated 11th November 2003 the Permanent Secretary furnished a list of 13 officers of the Transport Division who were qualified for the post. The Claimant was included in this list. There is hereto annexed and marked “G.E.J.1”, a true copy of the Memorandum dated 11th November 2003.

Mr Singh’s name appears as #12 on the list.

(11) In selecting officers to act as Motor Vehicle Inspectors, the Commission was of the view that MVI 1 was in a different stream from MVO 1. That being so in selecting officers from the Motor Vehicle Officer stream to be appointed in the Motor Vehicle Inspector stream, weight should be given to the date of attainment of the special qualifications required for appointment in the Motor Vehicle Inspector stream. The Commission also considered the recommendations of the Permanent Secretary for filling the post.

of 27

(12) The 10 officers referred to in paragraph 6 of the Claimant’s affidavit filed the 30th April 2007, were officers recommended by the Permanent Secretary and the dates of attainment of the requisite qualifications all preceded that of the Claimant. The Claimant was never recommended by the Permanent Secretary.

(17) The Commission met on 8th August and 12th September 2006 to consider the Claimant’s representations and comments of the Permanent Secretary. The Commission decided that in considering the appointment of the Claimant for the position of MVI 1 the same should be based on the date of his attainment of the qualification for that office.

(18) Meanwhile, by memorandum dated 20th September 2007, the Permanent Secretary recommended the Claimant to act as MVI 1 with effect from the date of his assumption of duty.

(20) As to paragraph 20 of the Claimant’s affidavit, the list of names, which included the Claimant’s name and is referred to in the letter of 21st September 2006, is a list of persons qualified for the office of Motor Vehicle Inspector 1 and not a list of persons recommended for appointment to that position.

[23] ISSUE

Did the PSC take the relevant considerations, as prescribed by Regulation 26 of the PSC

Regulations, into account when dealing with Mr. Singh’s applications for acting appointments in the

post of MVI I dated 4th July 2002 and 14th October 2003?

[24] LAW

The governing provision is Regulation 26 of the PSC Regulations3. Regulation 26 applies to any acting appointments made by the PSC which are not as a prelude to promotion to a higher

3 Supra

of 27

substantive position. The Regulation then dictates how such promotions are to be effected. The PSC was obligated therefore to take the following criteria into account:

a) As a general rule, seniority;

b) Such seniority must have occurred in the relevant Ministry/Department in which the Applicant is “eligible for such acting appointment”; and

c) The applicant must be able to “assume and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office”.

[25] ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

This matter can be readily determined once the proper construction of Regulation 26 is applied to the circumstances of this case. As such, the sub-issues to consider are:

a) Whether seniority is the primary factor to which the PSC was mandated to have regard in considering promotions;

b) Whether Mr. Singh’s alleged seniority was held in the relevant Ministry/Department rendering him “eligible for such acting appointment”; and

c) Whether Mr. Singh, if appointed, would be able to “assume and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office”.

[26] a. Whether seniority is the primary factor to which the PSC was mandated to have regard in considering promotions?

Mr. SINGH’s ARGUMENTS

Mr. Ramlogan addressed these issues from two perspectives. First, he posits that pursuant to Regulation 26 and in accordance with the usual practice seniority is the primary factor to be considered by the PSC. The alleged failure to do so in these circumstances rendered the decision to bypass Mr Singh illegal. Secondly, the decision to promote individuals who were junior to Mr Singh amounted to discrimination. Mr. Ramlogan submitted various authorities in support of his

of 27

contention that seniority should have been the primary consideration of the PSC when reviewing the applications for promotion4.

[27] THE PSC’s ARGUMENTS

Mr Martineau stressed that under Regulation 26, seniority was merely a general rule and not the rule that the PSC were mandated to follow. Further the PSC was entitled to depart from a general rule of seniority once it was reasonable so to do. Mr Singh’s position was therefore distinguishable from the applicants in the cases relied upon by Mr Ramlogan. They were inapplicable and did not assist Mr Singh. Mr Martineau further argued that the individual under consideration for acting must be “suitably qualified” for the acting position offered so as to satisfy the eligibility requirement. Mr. Singh was only deemed qualified in November 2003. He cannot be heard to complain of appointments offered to eligible persons before this date and on this date there were persons who were senior to him on the establishment. In these particular circumstances not only was it reasonable but it was also essential to ensure that the officer appointed to act possessed the necessary qualifications to properly discharge the technical duties of an MVI. This situation was exacerbated by the fact that the position offered was an entry-level position for which there was no Order-of-Merit List.

[28] ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Seniority as a requirement for an acting appointment under Regulation 26 is but a general rule. Seniority is determined by the date of permanent appointment. Mr Singh’s date of permanent appointment was 1992. At that date the evidence was that there were persons already appointed in the Ministry to the desired post. In fact the persons complained against were all appointed in their positions before that date. Mr. Singh himself highlighted the distinction between the factors for consideration under Regulation 26 and Regulation 24 of the PSC Regulations. Nonetheless

4 Dougnath Rajkumar PC No. 1 of 2006; Ramoutar v. The Public Service Commission Civil Claim No. CV 2008-00265; Furlogne v. The permanent Secretary in the Minisrtry of Health H.C.A. No. CV 2098 of 2003.

of 27

he seems to mistakenly confuse the priority to be accorded to the factors under each regulation, when he states5:

“In my experience the most senior officer is normally appointed to act in temporary

vacancies in a higher office”.

[29] The emphasis placed on Regulation 24, which refers to Regulation 18, clearly illustrates the significance attached to seniority when acting appointments are made as a prelude to promoting persons to a higher substantive post. Such is not the case under Regulation 26, where seniority is merely referred to as “the general rule” and not a mandatory one. It is a different regime governed by its own considerations. I am of the opinion therefore that the PSC was not obligated to accord seniority the weight suggested by Mr. Singh. It was but one of many factors to which they were to have regard.

[30] Coupled with this, seniority must be determined based on the date on which Mr. Singh entered the Department and moreover the MVO stream. When he entered the Public Service in 1989, Mr Singh was offered a temporary appointment and not an acting appointment, as asserted by him in paragraph 2 of his affidavit dated 20th April 2007. He was confirmed on the permanent establishment in his position in May 2005. Although this appointment was retroactive to 1992, it was an appointment to the post of MVO and not MVI, which is the post under consideration.

[31] Whilst I agree that seniority is the general rule and the primary factor, it can be departed from and Mr Singh has not shown that it has been departed from in this case. In any event, Mr Singh could not be considered senior at the times at which he now complains. The evidence shows otherwise6.

[32] b. Whether Mr Singh’s alleged seniority was held in the relevant Ministry/Department rendering him “Eligible for such Acting Appointment”?

Mr. SINGH’s ARGUMENTS

5 Paragraph 3 of Affidavit of the Claimant dated 26th February 2008

6 See Appendix 2

of 27

According to Mr. Singh he was “treated unfairly when he was bypassed for acting appointments to

the office of” MVI I7. His contention is that the PSC was acting on the recommendation of the Permanent Secretary, whose decision was erroneously based on an outdated Merit List. In addition, Mr. Singh alleges that he was unfairly treated because he was not notified that he was not being recommended, thus denying him the ability to make recommendations on his own behalf. Such breaches of the principles of fairness and natural justice cannot be condoned and so the decision of the PSC to bypass him must be quashed.

[33] THE PSC’s ARGUMENTS

The PSC counters that Mr. Singh’s complaints are unfounded. He was not qualified for the position at the times that his applications were pending. Moreover, he had not been appointed to a substantive position at the material times. In this regard they state: “… he would have only been

eligible to act in the office after he acquired the relevant qualifications and after his substantive

appointment”8. To bolster their point, the PSC then relies on the annexure to Mr. Singh’s affidavit dated 20th April 2007 marked as “B.S. 2”, which they say clearly illustrates the distinctions between the two posts both in terms of the duties and functions of each and the qualifications necessary to attain them.

[34] I agree with the arguments advanced by the PSC. The PSC Regulations, as all reason and logic would dictate, require seniority to be held in the “Ministry or Department” eligible for promotion. Mr. Singh, even if it was determined that he was senior at the material times, was not senior in the relevant Department at the material time. From the inception, he held positions in the post of MVO. It is only in October 2007 that he was considered qualified to act in the post of MVI I. Primarily under the Civil Service Act9 these posts are assigned different ranges. Secondly, by Mr. Singh’s own admission the two posts represent discrete routes by which one attains the post of Commissioner of Transport.

7 See paragraph 1 of the Claimant’s Submissions dated 11th June 2008

8 See paragraph 14 of the Defendant’s Submissions dated 15rh July 2008

9 CH 23:01

of 27

[35] The documents annexed at “B.S. 2” are highly instructive. I make the point again that the post of MVO and MVI are indisputably two different streams in the Transport Division. They each have their own structure and reporting lines to the Commissioner of Transport. The MVO is hired to perform “Routine work checking vehicles and drivers for violation of applicable laws”. The duties of the MVO I include:

i. ensuring vehicles are licensed and insured;

ii. ensuring vehicles are in safe driving condition;

iii. serving summonses;

iv. attendance at Court; and

v. the taking of traffic census, which is used to determine the appropriate places to install traffic lights and signs.

[36] On the other hand, the MVI performs “Technical work in the inspection of motor vehicles”. The responsibilities of the MVI entail among other things:

i. inspecting all types of vehicles for defects (such as testing brakes, checking headlights, noting visibility through windscreen/windows);

ii. recommending corrective measures;

iii. inspecting vehicles that were stolen, burnt or involved in an accident;

iv. supervising activities in the inspection shed; and

v. supervising skilled assistants.

[37] Clearly the duties and functions under the two posts are different. The MVI’s duties are of a highly technical nature; while those of the MVO are much more administrative. The distinction does not allow for an easy transition from one stream to another. One must possess the specific training, skill and experience to exercise the duties of an MVI. Mr. Singh failed to provide any evidence that he was indeed sufficiently qualified and/or competent to perform the duties of MVI I. His appointment to the post of MVO I did not automatically render him so capable, given the abovementioned distinctions between the posts. Mr. Singh therefore was not a member of the relevant Department eligible for promotion. It naturally follows therefore that he also did not possess any right to be notified that he was not being recommended, since he should not have held any reasonable expectation that he would be considered for the promotion.

of 27

[38] DISCRIMINATION

Having said that Mr. Balram Singh was confirmed in a permanent post in 2005 retroactive to 1992, can his complaint of discrimination stand? The discrimination that the Claimant complains against occurred in relation to officers who were appointed between 1992 and 2003. At this time, he would not have been the holder of any position within the Ministry. Further, when one examines the evidence at Appendix II, it will be noted that all of the officers complained against obtained their qualifications prior to him.

[39] Therefore the PSC did not violate Regulation 26. The Claimant was not bypassed for the acting appointment.

[40] c. Whether Mr. Singh, if appointed, would be able to “assume and discharge the duties and responsibilities of the office”?

Both parties failed to treat with this issue. Suffice it to say that Mr. Singh’s ability to “assume and discharge the duties and responsibilities” associated with the office of MVI I is intrinsically linked to

his belonging to the Ministry or Department “eligible” for promotion. I have already determined that he was not a part of the relevant stream in the Department under consideration. Moreover he failed to establish that he possessed the necessary combination of skills and/or experience, which would have rendered him competent for the post. As a consequence it is difficult to fathom how Mr. Singh would have assumed and discharged the duties and responsibilities of MVI 1. I am therefore of the firm opinion that this question must be answered in the negative.

[41] As a result of all these deliberations, there can be no objection to the PSC’s refusal to consider Mr. Singh for the post of MVI 1.

[42] CONCLUSION

It is clear based on the above analysis that the grounds advanced by Mr. Singh in support of his application for Judicial Review have not been borne out on the evidence he has tendered to this Court. In the premises the reliefs prayed cannot be granted.

of 27

[43] COSTS

The PSC, being the successful party, is entitled to their costs. As these proceedings were commenced by way of application, costs are to be assessed by the Court pursuant to Part 67.1210 of the CPR. However by Order dated 20th May 2008, I exercised my powers under Part 67.811 and set the Costs Budget at $149,443.75. This sum therefore represents the maximum award that the PSC can recover from Mr. Singh as costs in this matter.

[44] ORDER

It is hereby ordered as follows:

1. The Application for Judicial Review dated 30th April 2007 be and is hereby dismissed;

2. The Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs of the application, to be assessed;

3. The Defendant do file a Statement of Costs on or before 30th January 2009;

4. That the hearing do take place on 12th February 2009 at 1:30 pm courtroom SF 02.

Dated this 17th day of December 2008.

/s/ CHARMAINE PEMBERTON

HIGH COURT JUDGE

10 Part 67.12(1) of the CPR reads:

“Assessment of Costs – general

67.12 (1) This rule applies where costs fall to be assessed in relation to any matter or proceedings, or part of a matter or proceedings other than a procedural application”.

11 Part 67.8 (1) of the CPR reads:

“A party may however apply to the court to set a costs budget for the proceedings”.

of 27

APPENDIX 1

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR 1

Kind of Work

Technical work in the inspection of motor vehicles.

Distinguishing Features of Work

An employee in this class is responsible for inspecting all types of motor vehicles for defects and recommending corrective measures to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Duties include inspection of vehicles stolen, burnt or involved in accidents. Work usually follows established procedures and involves direct responsibility for the inspection shed and supervision of skilled assistants. A superior reviews work through reports and accomplishment and adherence to established policies and standards.

Examples of Work

Inspects motor vehicles for defects hazardous to highway safety, including the testing of breakes, checking of headlights for proper focus noting of visibility through windshield and windows; noting of and checking of steering gear assembly for worn bushings and bearings.

Inspects motor vehicles stolen, burnt and involved in accidents, prepares comprehensive reports and gives expert evidence in court relative to various findings.

Inspects government owned vehicles for valuation purposes; and appraises vehicles with a view advising on their disposal and for the determination of purchase tax.

Recommends corrective measures to owners of vehicles and prepares report on findings.

Supervises the activities in the inspection shed including the weighing of vehicles and recording of pertinent data by subordinates.

Patrols highways to identify defective vehicles hazardous to highway safety.

Performs related work as required.

of 27

Required knowledge, Skills and Abilities

Considerable knowledge of operation, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and movable equipment.

Knowledge of the Motor Vehicle laws and regulations.

Some knowledge of the principles and practices of mechanical engineering.

Ability to inspect and supervise the installation, operations and maintenance of mechanical equipment.

Ability to operate all classes of vehicles and to diagnose all mechanical defects.

Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with other employees and the public.

Minimum Experience and Training

Experience in the operation, care and general overhauling of motor vehicles; and training as evidenced by a full technological certificate in Automobile Engineering from City and Guilds or any equivalent combination of experience and training.

Necessary Special Requirement

Possession of a licence entitling holder to drive all classes of vehicles.

of 27

MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICER I

Kind of Work

Routine work checking vehicles and drivers for violation of applicable laws and regulations.


An employee in this class is responsible for checking vehicles on highways and elsewhere to ascertain whether they are licensed and insured and are in safe driving condition. Checks are also made for validity of driving permits, taxi drivers’ badges and other related tasks. Work includes serving summonses on offenders, attendance at court and taking of traffic census. Daily assignments are received from a superior who checks diaries and reports submitted for compliance with instructions.

Examples of work

Checks vehicles on highways, seeking out the unlicensed motor vehicles and those with defects hazardous to safe driving; also checks to ensure a validity of driver’s permits, taxi drivers’ badges, Motor Vehicle Insurance Certificates, and compliance with weight limitations.

Serves summonses on offenders, files cases, and attends court to give evidence; writes and serves notice to suspects to produce their motor vehicles for inspection.

Investigates applicants for replacement of “H” cars and the transfer of Taxi driver’s badges and licenses.

Investigates applications for rebate of licences by verifying that motor vehicles are dilapidated or have been scrapped.

Takes census of traffic on highways to support data justifying installation on removal of traffic lights and signs.

Maintains station diary and index book from road check sheets.

Accompanies a superior on inspection visits of oilfields and estate motor vehicles.


of 27

Knowledge, Skills and Abilities

Knowledge of motor vehicles laws and regulations.

Some knowledge of the laws of evidence and law enforcement methods.

Considerable knowledge of the various makes and colour of vehicles.

Ability to enforce applicable laws firmly and tactful and in respect for the rights of others.

Ability to take thumb prints

Ability to understand and carry our oral and written instructions.

Ability to prepare reports and statements.


Good eyesight, alertness and endurance to stand for long periods of work under varying climatic conditions.


Training as evidence by a Primary School Leaving Certificate or its equivalent.


Possession of a licence entitling holder to drive all makes of motor vehicles.

Certificate of fitness to use a pistol.

Possession of a Certificate of Good Character issued by the Commissioner of Police.

of 27

MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICER 11

Kind of Work

Work of a supervisory nature checking vehicles and drivers for violations of applicable laws and regulations.


An employee in this class performs highway searching seeking out unlicenced motor vehicles and defects, hazardous to safe highway driving; also ensure validity of driving permits, badges insurance certificates. Work involves supervision of lower level employees and considerable independence and is reviewed by a superior officer for efficiency and compliance with instructions through inspections, reports and general observations.

Examples of work

Checks vehicles on highways, seeking out the unlicensed motor vehicles with defects hazardous to safe driving; also checks to ensure validity of driver’s permits, taxi drivers’ badges, Motor Vehicle Insurance Certificates, and compliance with weight limitations; and supervises subordinates engaged in similar duties.

Serves summonses on offenders, files cases, and attends court to give evidence; writes and serves notices to suspects to produce their motor vehicles for inspection.

Investigates applications for rebate of licences by verifying that motor vehicles are dilapidated or have been scrapped.

Takes census of traffic on highways to support data justifying installation on removal of traffic lights and signs.

Maintains station diary and index book from road check sheets.

Accompanies a superior on inspection visits of oilfields and estate motor vehicles.

Assists in training of subordinate motor vehicle officers.

of 27


Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities

Considerable knowledge of motor vehicle laws and regulations.

Considerable knowledge of the laws of evidence and law enforcement methods.

Considerable knowledge of the various makes and colour of vehicles.

Ability to supervise a group of subordinates.

Ability to enforce applicable laws firmly and tactfully and with respect for the rights of others.

Ability to take thumb prints.

Ability to understand and carry our oral and written instructions.

Ability to prepare reports and statements.


Good eyesight, alertness and endurance to work standing for long periods under varying climatic conditions.


Considerable experience in inspectional work such as may have been gained in the next lower class and training as evidence by a Primary School Leaving Certificate, or any equivalent combination of experience and training.


Possession of a Passport issued by the Commissioner of Transport.

Possession of a licence entitling holder to drive all makes of motor vehicles.

Certificate of fitness to use a pistol.

of 27

DRIVER LICENSING EXAMINER

Kind of Work

Specialized work conducting tests for Drivers’ Permit and Professional Driving Instructor’s licences.


An employee in this class conducts theoretical and performance tests for learners applying for a Driver’s Permit and experienced drivers applying for Professional Driving Instructor’s licence. Work involves signing and issuing certificates of competency to those qualified and writing reports on results of examinations. Employee receives general, oral and written instructions on changes of policy, but is allowed considerable latitude performing assignments. Work is reviewed by a superior for conformance with established policies and regulations.

Examples of Work

Determines applicants’ qualifications by conducting routine oral examinations and performance tests for Driver’s Permit and Professional Driving Instructor’s licence for all types of motor vehicles such as private and hired cars, motor-cycles, omnibus, heavy or light goods vehicles, tractors and cranes.

Signs and issues certificates of competency to qualified applicants.

Makes weekly reports on results of driving tests, including details of causes of failures.


Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities

Considerable knowledge of motor vehicles laws and regulations.

Considerable knowledge of motor vehicle and applicable safety laws.

Ability to drive a;; types of motor vehicles.

Ability to examine learners in the theory and practice of driving all types of motor vehicles.

Ability to write reports clearly and concisely.

of 27

Ability to make determinations on applicants’ qualifications.


Good co-ordinated muscular responses, calmness and presence of mind in critical situations.


Considerable motor vehicle operating experience, preferably as a Driving Instructor; and training as evidenced by a G.C.E., Ordinary Level with passes in five subjects, including English Language and Mathematics or any equivalent combination of experience and training.


Driving Licence entitling holder to drive all classes of Motor Vehicles, including motor minibuses, omnibuses.

of 27

MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICER STREAM in the MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT

COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT

MOTOR VEHICLE SUPERVISOR 11

DRIVING LICENSING

MOTOR VEHICLE SUPERVISOR 11 (Range

MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICER 11 (Range 31c)

MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICER 1

DAILY PAID CHEQUERER

of 27

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR STREAM in the MINISTRY of WORKS and TRANSPORT

COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT

ASSISTANT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR 11 (Range 39)

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR 1 (Range 39) [Prospective

Post]

of 27

APPENDIX 11

NAME OF OFFICER/OFFICE QUALIFICATION

1. Mr Prakash Chaitram

Temporary Motor Vehicle Inspector

1988 – NEC Diploma – Auto and Diesel

2. Mr Junior Gordon

Mechanical Supervisor 1

1992 – NEC Auto Diesel and Craft

3. Mr Intaff Ali

Motor Vehicle Officer 1

1994 – NEC Auto and General Craft

1996 – NEC Certificate in Auto and Diesel Craft

4. Mr Anthony Narinesingh


1995 – NEC Auto and Diesel Craft

1999 – NEC Technician’s Diploma in Mechanical Engineering

5. Mr Glen Boney


1997 – NEC Certificate in Auto and Diesel Craft

6. Mr Hardath Badree



7. Mr Soffiath Mohammed

Clerk 11

1998/1999 – City and Guilds Certificate in Motor vehicle Systems

8. Mr John Mc Kell



9. Mr Inool Khan

Clerk 1

2000 – City and Guilds Certificate in Motor Vehicle Systems

REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF...

Documents

Transcript of REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF...