The High Court ruled that a Defence Forces applicant had a legitimate expectation that candidates for a two-year paramedic course would be selected from the pool described in the original course notice: applicants with a Leaving Certificate. The court said the case crossed the threshold only narrowly and granted relief on that eligibility issue.
The ex tempore judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 22 July 2019, concerned selection for a course run by the National Ambulance Service College (NASC). A notice issued on 7 May 2019 said applicants needed at least six ordinary-level Leaving Certificate passes, subject to listed alternatives. After interviews, the applicant was told on 5 June that he was among the successful candidates. On 11 June, the Defence Forces said interviews would be conducted again because an anomaly had been found.
The judge said the Defence Forces had used a 2019 interview scoring matrix with a different weighting from the 2018 matrix it intended to use. She did not find that the applicant had a legitimate expectation about which matrix would be used: the original notice did not specify it. Nor did being told he had secured a place, by itself, establish a legitimate expectation to take the place.
The separate eligibility change was decisive. The Defence Forces planned to widen the candidate pool to include people with a Level 5 NQF qualification, which NASC accepted alongside Leaving Certificate qualifications. The judge found that the original notice communicated an intention to select only from the narrower Leaving Certificate pool. She said the Defence Forces could set a narrower pool than NASC’s requirements, provided those selected still met NASC’s criteria.
The ruling followed a judicial review hearing on 19 July, the last working day before the course was due to begin. The court had earlier granted leave to bring the case and a stay that prevented further interviews. The judge noted that, as a practical matter, the three applicants could attend the course or nobody could, but said that did not affect her decision. She ruled against admitting late affidavits from either side and decided the case on the affidavits and pleadings as they stood three days before the hearing. She said her conclusion that the 2019 matrix had been used by mistake was based on that limited evidence.
The judgment does not establish that the applicant was entitled to a place because he had been named as successful. The relief concerned the change to the advertised academic eligibility pool; the source does not specify the terms of the final order.