The High Court quashed a decision rejecting a teacher’s appeal over her non-appointment to two assistant principal posts, finding that the appeal had not followed fair procedures and that the interview board was improperly constituted.
In a judgment delivered on 1 November 2005, Mr Justice O’Neill ruled that Frank Duggan, acting as the appeal decision-maker under Department of Education and Science Circular 5/98, had not taken adequate steps to test disputed evidence about Mary Becker’s interview and her earlier work in posts of responsibility. The court made an order of certiorari quashing his 6 April 2004 determination. It did not itself appoint Becker to either post or decide that she was suitable.
Becker, a teacher at St. Dominic’s College in Cabra, Dublin, had applied for two posts in 2003. She was the most senior of four candidates, and the judgment said that under the circular she was entitled to a post unless found unsuitable. The interview board found her unsuitable. Its chair was Joe Boyle; the school principal, Mary Keane, was also a member.
Becker challenged the board’s account of her interview, saying it was inaccurate and that her own notes gave a different account. She also disputed allegations about her performance in previous posts, which she said she had not seen before the school’s submission to the appeal decision-maker. The judge found that Duggan did not obtain the interviewers’ notes, interview board members or otherwise take steps to test the competing accounts. He also did not establish whether the allegations about Becker’s earlier performance had been raised with her in a way that gave her a reasonable opportunity to respond.
The court held that the appeal decision-maker had powers to require documents and to interview parties or call witnesses. Given the central factual disputes, the failure to take necessary steps to assess the evidence denied Becker natural justice and fair procedures. The judge also found that Boyle was not on the approved list of interview board chairpersons, so the board had not been properly constituted under the circular.
The judgment rejected other grounds. It held that the school principal was a necessary board member under the circular, despite the claimed risk of perceived bias. The judge also found that Becker had acted promptly in bringing judicial review and that her account did not establish a lack of candour. Although the decision-maker’s written reasons were inadequate, that shortcoming did not prevent the court from exercising its review jurisdiction.
The ruling concerned the legality of the appeal decision and the process leading to it. The order quashed that determination; the judgment did not make a fresh appointment decision.