The High Court has refused a Defence Forces sergeant’s application to quash a decision that he was not eligible to compete for promotion to flight sergeant because he had not completed a senior NCO course or been certified as having an equivalent satisfactory standard of training.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan on 22 October 2021, concerned the General Officer Commanding of the Air Corps’ decision of 26 September 2019. The applicant, a Senior Airborne Radar Operator instructor with more than 21 years’ Defence Forces service, had applied with two others for certification under the alternative training criterion in the promotion rules.
The GOC’s letter said the three sergeants had not completed a senior NCO course and had not been certified as reaching a satisfactory standard of training. It set out a policy that personnel should complete the course before promotion to senior NCO rank, “apart from those instances where the exigencies of the service require it”. The letter also acknowledged the SAROs’ high level of training and specialist skills.
The applicant argued that his individual training and experience had not been assessed, that the GOC had relied on an undisclosed recommendation from his commanding officer, and that the GOC had applied a fixed policy. He also claimed the promotion rules created a legitimate expectation that his eligibility would be assessed under the alternative training criterion. The respondents denied the allegations.
Justice O’Regan said the applicant had not established that the policy was rigid and inflexible or that the decision was irrational or unreasonable. The court noted that the application letter referred to the possible retirement of the serving flight sergeant and the risk of an operational vacancy, but did not explain how the three applicants’ training could meet or closely mirror the senior NCO course standard.
The judge also found no evidence in the GOC’s decision that the commanding officer’s cover letter had improperly influenced the outcome. The applicant had not shown that his individual circumstances were disregarded: the request did not set out differences between the three applicants or make specific representations about his training. The court likewise found he had not established a breach of legitimate expectation.
The reliefs sought were refused. The judgment records that no interim or interlocutory injunction had been granted and that an injunction was no longer pursued.