The High Court has rejected Michael Grange’s challenge to how the Commission for Public Service Appointments handled his complaint about a Civil Service recruitment competition, finding that the process was basically fair.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2014, Mr Justice Barrett declined to grant any of the reliefs sought. He found that the Commission’s investigation complied in substance with its Code of Practice and that Mr Grange received the basic fairness of procedures to which he was entitled. The judgment did not order a fresh investigation or change the recruitment decision.
Mr Grange, then a serving civil servant, applied in 2012 for an Administrative Officer (Human Resources) post. He was told he had not been shortlisted. The shortlisting board assessed his application as having somewhat relevant undergraduate experience, but no relevant work experience or relevant qualifications and experience. A formal review concluded that his general business degree, which included human resources elements, did not meet the competition’s requirement for specific human resources qualifications. His legal qualifications were also treated as irrelevant to that requirement.
Mr Grange complained to the Commission, arguing that the Public Appointments Service had failed to apply the merit principle and that the review of his application was unsatisfactory. He later provided the Commission with material from Dublin City University about his degree, as well as information about another institution’s human resources qualification that he said was similar. The Commission maintained its finding that no breach of the Code had occurred and refused to reopen its investigation.
The court first considered whether the Commission’s decisions could be reviewed by a court, given that the Commission cannot alter a recruitment decision. It concluded that they could be justiciable where a flawed process might affect a person’s rights or interests. It then rejected Mr Grange’s substantive complaints.
The judge found no improper failure to consider the university material. The Commission and shortlisting board were entitled to assess candidates by reference to application forms, and there was no legal duty to seek further information for every candidate. The board had sought additional information for five candidates from a field of 1,124 where it was uncertain whether to rule them in or out; that did not require it to do the same for Mr Grange.
The court also rejected his claims of unfair procedures and errors of law or fact. It said the Commission gave him opportunities to raise his concerns and that the imperfections he alleged did not make the process unfair. The court did not determine the age discrimination issue, which it said was for the Equality Tribunal in the first instance. A claim based on legitimate expectations was not pursued in legal submissions; in any event, the judge found the Commission had acted as the Code contemplated.
The judgment concerns the Commission’s complaint investigation. It did not decide that Mr Grange should have been appointed, nor did it direct the Commission to conduct a new appeal.