A decision by the Armed Forces of Malta not to allow a soldier to resit a practical exam to be promoted to the rank of Driver B2 was abusive and unreasonable, a court ruled today.
Kevin Azzopardi filed an application against the Prime Minister and the Commander of the Armed Forces complaining he had been the victim of administratative action when he had not been allowed to resit an exam which could lead to a promotion.
Mr Justice Joseph R Micallef said Mr Azzopardi 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. Mr Azzopardi submitted his application. All candidates were required to sit for a written and a practical exam.
As many had applied, the army decided to split the applicants in two groups. The first group were to have their written exam on April 28, 2008 and the practical exam on the following day, the second group were 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 of applicants and had failed to pass his practical exam.
Mr Azzopardi told the court that his name had not been included in the list of those who had passed the written exam and he was verbally told to take 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 from the exam.
But, it later resulted that he ought not to have sat the resit of the written exam but only that of the practical exam.
Mr Azzopardi had filed a formal complaint, but this was still under investigation when the promotions were announced and he was, therefore, not chosen as eligible for promotion. This, Mr Azzopardi claimed, was an unreasonable action on the part of the AFM.
Mr Justice Micallef said that it was clear that Mr Azzopardi had passed the first written exam and had obtained over 60 per cent of the marks. But he was not allowed to sit for the practical exam resit as his case was still under investigation.
The court said that had the AFM conducted the examinations as it should, Mr Azzopardi would have been called to resit the written exam which he had already passed. He had suffered prejudice as a result of mistakes made by the AFM and which were not attributable to his own actions.