I refer to the article ‘Senior principals’ exam rules changed close to election’ (April 25).

The selection process for the engagement of senior principals in the public service was initiated in January 2017. On March 27, 2018 the Times of Malta published a quasi-identical article on the same case and the public service had replied, stating the facts of the case being presented here again.

The selection procedure for senior principals adhered very strictly to the existing sectoral agreement between the government and trade unions. At that point there were no issues raised.

The sectoral agreement in question states that candidates are to be shortlisted on the basis of merit after having passed the general ability test (GAT). The number of candidates shortlisted was tied to a 1:1.5 to 1:2 ratio of available vacancies stipulated in the agreement (the agreement for general service grades, signed on February 5, 2016, clause 7.3 A). This provision was also included in the call for applications for the post of senior principal in the public service (clause 6.2 of the selection procedure of the call).

The pass mark of the GAT was set at 70 per cent to reach the 1:1.5 to 1:2 ratio. Only 87 candidates reached the mark and this number fell short of the set ratio. In the circumstances, approval was sought from the Public Service Commission to lower the benchmark.

The sectoral agreement in question allows for such an alteration provided that it is approved by the PSC (article 7.3.D of the sectoral agreement: where criteria may be altered subject to the prerogative of the management and sanctioning of the PSC).

The PSC is an independent statutory body established in terms of article 109 of the Constitution of Malta. For these last six years, 50 per cent of the PSC’s members are nominated directly by the Opposition and another 50 per cent by the government.

The lowering of the 70 per cent benchmark was necessary to capture the right number of candidates to align with the ratios set in the sectoral agreement. It was a regular procedure and non-discriminatory.

All candidates were duly informed about the lowering of the benchmarks. Those who exceeded the pass mark were awarded marks during the interview process commensurate with the marks achieved over and above the pass mark, as was stipulated in the call for applications.

The recommendation by the Office of the Ombudsman was duly considered. However, it fails to take into account that the whole selection process adhered strictly to the sectoral agreement, which agreement had a clear provision on what steps should be taken and how in the event that candidates reaching the originally set GAT pass mark were less than the two per existing vacancy.

There was no change of rules along the selection process. Therefore, it is unfair to claim that an injustice was carried out when the public administration was fully accountable, transparent and compliant with procedures agreed to with the trade unions and acquired the necessary approval from the PSC.

Editorial note: The article in question was wholly based on the Ombudsman’s findings.