Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

State v Public Service Commission, Ex parte Govind [1994] FJHC 165; Hbj0012.1993s (7 November 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.12 OF 1993

THE STATE

V.

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

EX PARTE

SALIK RAM GOVIND
f/n Shiu Govind

V. Kapadia for the Applicant
D. Singh for the Respondent

DECISION

This is an Application brought pursuant to RHC O.53 r8 for orders that Paula Ramasima and Sakeo Varea attend for cross-examination. Leave to seek Judicial Review was obtained on 19 July 1993 and Messrs. Ramasima and Varea filed affidavits on behalf of the Respondent on 7 July and 18 August 1993 respectively.

Despite over 12 months having elapsed since leave was granted no motion as required by RHC O.53 r54 has been entered and no application for extension of the 14 day period has been sought. Counsel for the Respondent did not, however, raise any objection to my hearing this Application.

In support of the Application Mr. Kapadia argued that the affidavits filed left many questions unanswered. In particular the Applicant wanted to explore (a) why there was a long delay in filing the advertised vacancy (b) why the Applicant's references were not taken up (c) why the Applicant was not shown summaries of his Annual Confidential Reports and (d) what role was played in the events complained of by one Dr. Rafai.

The attitude of the Courts to this type of application was recently explained by the Fiji Court of Appeal in Anuradha Charan v.The Public Service Commission & Others (FCA2/92). Orders for cross-examination will only very rarely be made since it is the procedure adopted by the administrative body which is in question not the correctness or merits of the decision reached.

The grounds upon which the Applicant is seeking relief against the Respondent are set out in paragraph 11 of the Statement filed pursuant to O.53 r32. Having considered the matters of complaint and compared them with the evidence filed I am of the view that the only relevant matter upon which sufficient evidence has not yet been placed before the Court is the question of minimum qualifications for the post advertised. The Applicant says that he was the only person with the required qualifications but Mr. Ramasima says that that is not the case but gives no reason for his answer.

Rather, however, then allow cross-examination on this point my opinion is that the better course would be to allow both the Applicant and the Respondent to file a further affidavit confined to dealing with that point only. Such affidavits must be filed in Court within 14 days hereof.

In all the circumstances the Application fails and is dismissed.

M.D. SCOTT
JUDGE

7th November, 1994

HBJ0012.93S