The High Court has refused Stephen Clarke’s application for judicial review of decisions that ended his candidacy for a senior executive engineer position, finding no unlawfulness in the recruitment process.
In a judgment dated 11 January 2024, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter held that Clarke had a reasonable opportunity, through informal and formal reviews, to make submissions on whether his qualification met the competition’s eligibility requirement. The court refused substantive relief. It did not decide that Clarke’s degree was, or was not, an engineering degree; its review concerned the lawfulness of the decision-making process.
Clarke applied in March 2023 for the position through the Public Appointments Service (PAS). The competition required an honours degree at Level 8 in engineering. Clarke holds a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Construction Management from Waterford Institute of Technology, now South East Technological University. After reviewing his degree and transcripts, PAS decided he did not meet the requirement and ended his candidacy.
Clarke argued that PAS should have invited him to address its concerns before making that decision. He also challenged PAS’s reliance on earlier advice from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage concerning a similarly titled degree from a different institution. In reviews, he submitted material about his degree’s classification in the national qualifications framework and its Engineers Ireland accreditation, as well as a letter from a course leader. PAS upheld its decision at both review stages.
The judge assessed fairness across the process as a whole, through the formal review. He said the recruitment booklet made clear that no final determination would be made until all stages were complete. Clarke had been told PAS considered his degree ineligible and had two opportunities to challenge that view and submit supporting material. In that context, the court found the process was not unfair.
The court also held that PAS could take the earlier departmental advice into account as relevant institutional knowledge about the degree requirement. It found no obligation to disclose that advice separately or invite submissions on it, given Clarke’s opportunity to address the central eligibility question during the reviews.
The judgment said it was reasonably open to PAS to apply the requirement as written, without extending it to materially equivalent degrees. Whether the qualification rules should be more flexible was a policy matter for the relevant authorities, not the court. Clarke’s application for judicial review was refused.