A HIGH COURT judge has ordered the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to reconsider a chief petty officer’s promotion in the Coast Guard (TTCG) after declaring that his constitutional rights were infringed.

In a ruling on March 28, Justice Ricky Rahim quashed the CDS’s decision not to promote Hayden De Four while ordering the Defence Force boss to consider his qualifications, experience and training within 30 days and inform him 14 days after.

The State was ordered to compensate De Four for the CDS’s unfair and irrational actions and breach of his constitutional rights. The CDS and the Attorney General were also ordered to pay De Four’s legal costs.

In his lawsuit, De Four claimed he was unfairly denied promotion to Fleet Chief Petty Officer (FCPO) in December 2022. His attorneys, Arden Williams, Don Marie Adolphe and Mariah Ramrattan, argued promotions in the TTCG were always based on seniority and, as the most senior officer, he had a legitimate expectation of advancement.

Instead, the position was given to a junior officer.

In its defence, the CDS and AG said promotions to FCPO are also determined by experience and not seniority alone. They argued that the other officer was better suited because of his training and experience in the Marine and Integrated Project Team department.

They also contended De Four was never promised a promotion and was not treated unfairly.

De Four’s evidence was that he enlisted in the TTCG in 1996. He has held the rank of CPO since 2014.

Promotions to the next rank took place in December 2022, and De Four contended he was disregarded while his junior got the nod. Promotions in the TTCG follow the regulations for the naval body, which says once a rating has qualified educationally and professionally, their name is placed on a roster with a “basic date.”

However, the judge noted there is no distinct roster for promotion to the FCPO and since no examination is required for the rank, a “basic date” cannot be established. Instead, only a seniority roster can establish an officer’s position in the TTCG.

De Four’s lawsuit also said that six months after the promotions exercise, a memorandum showed adjustments to the seniority dates of the other officer, putting him ahead of De Four and others.

In his ruling, Rahim found that the actions taken against De Four violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution, including due process and fair treatment.

“This issue has reared its head time and time again in these courts as it treats with the common tension between promotion as a consequence of seniority as against a merit-based approach consistent with the needs of the institution.”

He said the starting point was to understand the regulation, which, he noted, was silent on the criteria for recommending promotion. He also noted that seniority was only a guiding factor when there was more than one recommendation.

Although he disagreed with De Four’s contentions on his interpretation of the regulations and ruled against them, Rahim admitted he was concerned by the offic