By Barbara Gayle, Staff ReporterTHE SUPREME Court has ruled that the Public Service Regulations were not breached when Senior Assistant Attorney-General Lackson Robinson was reverted to his substantive post after acting, in a clear vacancy, for more than a year as Deputy Solicitor-General.
Mr. Robinson had accused the members of the Public Service Commission of breaching the regulations. He claimed that before he was reverted, there should have been a hearing and a determination made as to his suitability for the post.
Justice Hazel Harris heard the originating summons and ruled Friday that Robinson's complaint, that he was not given an opportunity to respond to an evaluation report, was "devoid of merit".
The judge, in dismissing the origination summons, said "in any event, the fact that the Solicitor-General had not submitted an evaluation report on the plaintiff at the time he recommended Mr. Salmon's acting appointment, does not show that he had departed from any general practice of not submitting an evaluation report upon a recommendation for an acting appointment.
"There is no practice, or procedure, which demonstrates that the plaintiff would have been entitled to his performance being assessed, as a prelude to his being reverted from acting in the capacity of Deputy Solicitor-General," the Court said.
Michael Hylton, Q.C., Solicitor-General, had taken the decision last year to have other senior lawyers in the Attorney-General's Department act as Deputy Solicitor-General, so as to have the most suitable person appointed to the post. The Commission supported the decision taken by Mr. Hylton.
He also filed an affidavit in which, he said, he had told Mr. Robinson that he was not satisfied with his performance.
In response to the affidavit, Mr. Robinson said Mr. Hylton had said nothing about his performance or gave him the slightest indication that his performance was a factor, when he took the decision to have Hugh Salmon act as Deputy Solicitor-General.
Mr. Robinson, who was employed to the Department since 1989, was sent on leave on May 1 last year, until further orders. He has filed a motion contending that it was unlawful for the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Justice to have sent him on leave, because he did not breach the Staff Orders. The matter is pending in the Supreme Court.
