High Court judge, Frank Seepersad, has slammed the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) for a seven-year delay in interviewing secondary-school teachers.
This came as he ordered the commission to interview one teacher to determine his suitability for teaching physics and integrated science in 90 days.
In the ruling yesterday (August 15), Seepersad held that school teacher Prakash Sugremsingh’s right to the protection of the law had been violated and breached by the TSC’s delays in interviewing him for a higher teaching position.
He also ordered $30,000 in vindicatory damages.
Seepersad now has to determine if Sugremsingh is entitled to any salary arrears.
In his lawsuit, Sugremsingh said he was appointed assistant teacher III in 2000 and placed at Shiva Boys’ Hindu College. His salary grade was $4,131-$4,971.
He then applied to the Corinth Teachers College for his teacher’s diploma. In 2010, he graduated from the University of Trinidad and Tobago with a bachelor of education, secondary, with a specialisation in integrated science. Although Sugremsingh expected an appointment or promotion to graduate teacher III, the judge said the mere fact an applicant has the relevant qualifications did not automatically guarantee success at promotion, but should be considered.
Sugremsingh asserted he had not been promoted for 12 years, although his transcripts were sent to the Education Ministry. He said he was then told he needed to complete a bridging programme, which he did. In 2017, he received an assessment letter from the ministry confirming he was qualified for promotion, but had to be interviewed by the TSC.
To date, he has not been interviewed and is still being paid as an assistant teacher.
In 2023, the TSC indicated he was appointed Teacher 1 Secondary (Grade III) in 2010. However, his payslips never reflected the increase in his pay grade.
In evidence before the court, the TSC said that based on the volume of assessments/applications, interviews in the subject area of physics are currently being done for people assessed in March 2017.
However, Seepersad said, “This evidence instils a significant degree of disquiet in the court’s mind and suggests that the first defendant’s current modus operandi and organisational structure is in dire need of reform.
“If, as the evidence suggests, there exists at least a seven-year delay between the time one becomes qualified to be interviewed and when the interview is actually conducted, then such a scenario is completely unacceptable as it does not accord with good administration.”
He said there should be a “clarion call” for constitutional reform as it appeared the TSC was no longer able to manage hiring, promoting and disciplining teachers effectively and efficiently. In addition, the number of teachers needed had dramatically increased since independence, but the process had “remained frozen in time as the republic appears to be wedded to inherited colonial processes,” he warned.
The TSC played a critical role in the country, he said, and vacancies in the school system should be filled immediately so that children got the best possible education.
Seepersad said the TSC’s delay in interviewing Sugremsingh was a “cause of understandable frustration,” as he had been relegated to the sidelines “while his productive teaching years are wasting away” and he was unable to progress. Many more teachers were likely to be in a similar situation, he said.
Seepersad said qualified citizens should expect relevant and meaningful employment in their chosen fields in a reasonable time, considering the hundreds of billions of dollars the State invested in education.
“If such opportunities do not exist then the society must reassess, review, reform and revamp its processes, as a matter of urgency.
“Any society which is unable to provide meaningful employment and engagement to its citizens stands on the brink of dysfunction as the lack of opportunity will certainly catalyse criminality and chaos.”
Seepersad also said the TSC did not explain why only five teachers were interviewed for any particular subject area in a month, and the alarming reality of delay and backlog was not justifiable.
“This court cannot and will not accept that the first defendant’s inability to interview the claimant after nearly seven years is reasonable. The first defendant must do better and its failure to interview the claimant and conduct its interviews in a timely manner is patently unreasonable.”
The judge will now have to determine what arrears, if any, Sugremsingh is entitled, to, since, he said, there was a conflict in the evidence, as his payslip had shown no increase in his pay since 2000.
Sugremsingh was represented by Edwin Roopnarine. Natoya Moore, Evanna Welch and Sara Muslim appeared for the TSC and the State.
(GML)