A move by the Teach­ing Ser­vice Com­mis­sion (TSC) to in­tro­duce a new pro­ce­dure for the re­cruit­ment of teach­ers for de­nom­i­na­tion­al schools has re­ceived the nod of ap­proval from a High Court Judge. 

De­liv­er­ing a judg­ment, yes­ter­day morn­ing, High Court Judge West­min James dis­missed a law­suit brought by the Pres­by­ter­ian Church of T&T against the com­mis­sion. 

The law­suit cen­tred around the com­mis­sion’s de­ci­sion tak­en in 2021. 

It was pur­sued by the Pres­by­ter­ian Church on be­half of the Pres­by­ter­ian Pri­ma­ry Schools’ Board of Ed­u­ca­tion. 

Be­fore the de­ci­sion, prospec­tive teach­ers reg­is­tered with the Min­istry of Ed­u­ca­tion would ap­ply to de­nom­i­na­tion­al boards with va­can­cies in their schools and be in­ter­viewed. 

The boards made rec­om­men­da­tions and the TSC and the min­istry then con­duct­ed their own in­ter­views. The re­sults of the in­ter­views were pro­vid­ed to the boards, who were al­lowed to raise ob­jec­tions on moral and re­li­gious grounds. 

Suc­cess­ful can­di­dates were then placed in va­cant po­si­tions. 

In 2021, the com­mis­sion not­ed there were 2,000 pend­ing ap­pli­ca­tions for teach­ing jobs in pri­ma­ry schools. 

It then im­ple­ment­ed its pro­posed pol­i­cy un­der which it would cease ac­cept­ing new ap­pli­ca­tions un­less there were va­can­cies, ac­cept ap­pli­ca­tions on­ly for known va­can­cies, and in­ter­view ap­pli­cants with the old­est go­ing first. 

The boards would then be per­mit­ted to rec­om­mend teach­ers from the suc­cess­ful can­di­dates al­ready screened by the com­mis­sion. 

The TSC’s move and de­ci­sion to ad­ver­tise va­can­cies for those po­si­tions in schools con­trolled and man­aged by the Pres­by­ter­ian Pri­ma­ry Schools’ Board of Ed­u­ca­tion was chal­lenged.

In de­ter­min­ing the case, Jus­tice James con­sid­ered the pro­vi­sions of the Con­sti­tu­tion, the Pub­lic Ser­vice Com­mis­sion Reg­u­la­tions, and the Con­cor­dat of 1960, which es­tab­lished the re­la­tion­ship be­tween de­nom­i­na­tion­al school boards and the Gov­ern­ment, since be­fore In­de­pen­dence.

In rul­ing that the al­leged old pol­i­cy was not a set­tled prac­tice and the 2021 pol­i­cy was valid, Jus­tice James ruled that it (the old pol­i­cy) would have been re­flect­ed in the reg­u­la­tions and the Con­cor­dat. 

“The fact that it is ab­sent from these doc­u­ments al­so demon­strates to this Court that it was not a well-set­tled prac­tice or el­e­vat­ed to con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tion,” he said. 

He al­so sug­gest­ed that the al­leged old pol­i­cy con­flict­ed with the es­tab­lished le­gal frame­work. 

He al­so ruled that it was dis­crim­i­na­to­ry to qual­i­fied prospec­tive teach­ers, who did not ap­ply to the boards first. 

Jus­tice James al­so re­ject­ed claims that the com­mis­sion was ob­lig­at­ed to ac­cept the rec­om­men­da­tions of the de­nom­i­na­tion­al boards. 

Stat­ing that rec­om­men­da­tions are ad­vi­so­ry and not bind­ing, Jus­tice James said: “Nei­ther the Reg­u­la­tions nor the Con­cor­dat recog­nise a con­sti­tu­tion­al right to au­to­mat­ic ac­cep­tance of rec­om­men­da­tion.

“This would un­der­mine the dis­cre­tion of the TSC and ren­der reg­u­la­to­ry safe­guards mean­ing­less,” he added. 

Jus­tice James al­so re­ject­ed claims over the com­mis­sion’s de­ci­sion to ad­ver­tise va­can­cies in ac­cor­dance with the new pol­i­cy in 2022. 

“I there­fore find no ba­sis to hold that the ad­ver­tise­ment de­ci­sion was ul­tra vires, an im­prop­er ex­er­cise of dis­cre­tion, based on ir­rel­e­vant con­sid­er­a­tions and/or un­rea­son­able,” he said. 

De­spite his find­ings, Jus­tice James ac­knowl­edged the sig­nif­i­cance of pre­serv­ing the de­nom­i­na­tion­al char­ac­ter of as­sist­ed schools by af­firm­ing the Con­cor­dat. 

“How­ev­er, if the de­nom­i­na­tion­al boards seek to al­ter this arrange­ment, such changes should be pur­sued through good faith ne­go­ti­a­tions with the Gov­ern­ment, fol­lowed by the nec­es­sary leg­isla­tive and con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ments,” he said. 

“This Court does not be­lieve that this can be achieved through ju­di­cial ac­tion that would cir­cum­vent the es­tab­lished le­gal and con­sti­tu­tion­al process­es,” he added. 

He al­so or­dered the par­ties to bear their own le­gal costs based on the sig­nif­i­cance of the case. 

‘Time need­ed to con­sid­er ap­peal’

Con­tact­ed yes­ter­day, Chair­man of the Pres­by­ter­ian Pri­ma­ry Schools’ Board of Ed­u­ca­tion Vick­ram Ram­lal said he and his fel­low board mem­bers need­ed time to de­cide whether the judg­ment would be ap­pealed. 

“The Board has to study the judg­ment and con­sult with our at­tor­neys and will then is­sue a state­ment,” Ram­lal said. 

In a state­ment, chief ex­ec­u­tive of­fi­cer of the Catholic Ed­u­ca­tion Board of Man­age­ment (CEBM) Sharon Man­groo said her or­gan­i­sa­tion, which was an in­ter­est­ed par­ty in the case, was dis­ap­point­ed with the out­come. 

Mungroo, who al­so serves as head of the As­so­ci­a­tion of De­nom­i­na­tion­al Boards of Ed­u­ca­tion (ADBE), stat­ed that the last ad­ver­tise­ment for ap­pli­ca­tions for teach­ing po­si­tions in de­nom­i­na­tion­al schools was is­sued in Jan­u­ary 2023. 

“The list of can­di­dates who meet the cri­te­ria nec­es­sary to up­hold the preser­va­tion and char­ac­ter of Catholic schools was ex­haust­ed in 2024, leav­ing no suit­able can­di­dates to fill the 44 ex­ist­ing teacher va­can­cies in 32 Catholic pri­ma­ry schools,” she said. 

“The on­go­ing in­abil­i­ty to fill per­ma­nent teacher va­can­cies prompt­ly leaves stu­dents with­out a teacher for ex­tend­ed pe­ri­ods, which hin­ders our abil­i­ty to pro­vide qual­i­ty ed­u­ca­tion in our schools,” she added. 

Man­groo ex­pressed hope that a so­lu­tion could be found through di­a­logue. 

“The CEBM looks for­ward to any good faith ne­go­ti­a­tions that en­able the pro­vi­sion of Catholic ed­u­ca­tion to the stu­dents in our schools,” she said.