By AZARD ALI Thursday, March 18 2010

THE former Acting Chief Inspector of the Occupational Safety and Health Authority (OSHA) yesterday lost his bid to become the permanent inspector when a High Court judge ruled that the man’s allegation of bias and discrimination could not be substantiated.

Justice Judith Jones dismissed the lawsuit of Devnath Roopnarine who sued the authority for failing to appoint him as director. Roopnarine filed judicial review proceedings against the authority’s written decision to him on April 15, 2009, that he would not be appointed director. He contended, in court documents filed, that the decision was due to racial discrimination, abuse of power, bad faith and was unlawful.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act was passed in 2004 and established for the first time, the Occupational Safety and Health Authority for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing safety practices in the workplace. The Act provides for the appointment of a chief inspector.

The authority appointed Roopnarine to act for six months in 2007 following interviews conducted. He was interviewed twice for the post of director. In 2008, Roopnarine was again appointed by the authority to act between October 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, but he was informed the appointment was not an entitlement to permanent appointment.

In letters sent to the authority, Roopnarine’s attorneys requested reasons why he was not appointed. Attorney Winston Seenath, instructed by V Goopeesingh, argued Roopnarine’s case before Justice Jones. The lawsuit was defended on the authority’s behalf by Senior Counsel Deborah Peake and Ravi Nanga, instructed by Jennifer Mohammed.

In a 17-page judgment delivered in the San Fernando High Court yesterday, Justice Jones stated the authority did inform Roopnarine by letter of the reasons why he was not appointed to the position.

In dealing with Roopnarine’s contention of racial discrimination, Jones stated in her judgment, “Out of an abundance of caution, let me say here that even if racial discrimination had been raised as a ground of challenge, there is no evidence before me, before or after the striking out of the paragraphs, to support such a ground. The allegations of the claimant in this regard are vague, unsupported by facts and frankly present as ‘shots in the dark’.”

On the issue of Roopnarine’s suitability for the post, Jones stated in her judgment that according to the interviews the authority conducted, he did not outshine other applicants.