The Armed Forces of Malta were wrong not to allow a soldier to resit an exam that could lead to a promotion, a judge ruled yesterday.
Kevin Azzopardi claimed that the AFM’s decision not to let him retake a practical exam in order to be promoted to the rank of Driver B2 was abusive and unreasonable.
Mr Justice Joseph Micallef noted in the judgment that Mr Azzopardi had joined the AFM in 1992 and held the rank of lance bombardier.
A call for applications for the grade of Driver B2 was issued in April 2008 and Mr Azzopardi had applied. Candidates were required to sit both a written and a practical exam.
As the number of applicants was large, the AFM decided to split them in two groups. The first was to sit the written exam on April 28, 2009, and the practical exam the following day. The others had to have their written exam on May 26, 2008, and the practical exam on May 27.
The resit for the practical exam was to be held on June 5, 2008, and for the written exam on June 12 2008. The latter resit was limited to the second group only.
Mr Azzopardi had formed part of the first group and had failed to pass his practical exam.
He told the court his name had not been included in the list of those who had passed the written exam of April 28 and he was verbally told to do the resit.
In the course of the resit, he was accused of cheating and two erasers with words written on them were found in his pocket. Mr Azzopardi was immediately disqualified. However, it later resulted that he did not have to sit again for the written exam but only for the practical exam.
Mr Azzopardi had filed a formal complaint but this was still being considered when the promotions were announced in May 2009 and he was therefore not deemed eligible for promotion. This, he insisted, was unreasonable on the part of the AFM.
Mr Justice Micallef said it was clear that Mr Azzopardi had passed the first written exam and obtained over 60 per cent of the marks. However, he was not allowed to do the practical exam resit because his case was still under investigation.
The court said that had the AFM conducted the examinations as it should have, then Mr Azzopardi would have been called to do his resit of the practical exam and not of the written exam, which he had already passed.
Mr Azzopardi had suffered a prejudice as a result of mistakes made by the AFM.
The court therefore upheld Mr Azzopardi’s application and ruled that the AFM had acted in an unreasonable manner.