One
of natural justice, and in particular that part which is summed up in the phrase "audi alteram partem", should be applied. of the well known classes is that of dismissal from office.. Mr. Somerville, for the defendant, in an admirably clear and concise submission has suggested that the present case is not within that class, because reversion is something less than dismissal and carries no tangible consequence. With respect to him I cannot agree. I assume the appointment carried with it some increase in salary. There would also be the matter of prestige. Dismissal and reversion are of course different to some extent, but the difference is only that of degree:
Then it is said that the principle has no application to an office held at pleasure or where the discretion given is absolutely unrestricted. As a general rule that is so, although the Court will not confine itself to the immediate words alone but will take into account the whole framework and context of the employment: Malloch v. Aberdeen Corporation think it necessary to explore this aspect. To my mind the present
It turns upon case does not turn upon the nature of the dismissal.
(1) However I do not
•
the nature of the office. And that is essentially a trial office, an office held for the time being to enable the Commissioner to assess the holder and see if he is fit to hold it permanently. It brings temporary advantages but confers no substantive status, as did for example, membership of the University in R. v. Aston
(2) University Senate I cannot see in this respect the distinction suggested by the Sergeant between "Probationary Inspectors", which is the term applied to persons recruited directly at that level,
and "Inspectors on Trial", which is a term reserved for those,
:
like the Sergeant, who come up from the ranks.
The latter may,
as hè suggests, have to undergo a more rigorous selection process
If so there would but I cannot accept that that process is final.
be no point in making appointments on trial. Sergeant Khan says. that he is the first such person ever to have been reverted in
rank.
If this is so it is a tribute to the selection process.
It does not alter the character of the position. I am enjoined
(3) by the Frivy Council in Durayappah v. Fernando to consider first of all the nature of the position held by the person complaining
of injustice. I have done so and have come to the conclusion that
(1) [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1578 at 1597
(2) [1969] 2 Q.B. 538
(3) [1967] 2 A.C. 337
$
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.