Public Service Commission received no objections over eligibility of surgeons

The controversy over the selection of a minister's son-in-law for a post in ophthalmic surgery at Mater Dei has entered a new dimension, after the Opposition claimed there was foul play involved in the selection of the candidates

After it turned out that one of Labour's electoral candidates was on the selection panel for the appointment of an ophthalmic surgeon, the Public Service Commission said it had requested the panel to confirm that all the applicants who had been interviewed were eligible, and that this confirmed by means of a declaration signed by all the local members of the board.

On his part, PL candidate Franco Mercieca, an ophthalmologist, claims he raised the issue of ineligibility of the candidates but felt there was no reason to register his disagreement or present a minority report on the selection of the candidate.

The Public Service Commission today said it annulled the selection process for three general surgery posts, the choice of which sparked controversy after Labour MPs claimed four surgeons were appointed without the necessary qualifications.

One of the four surgeons was the son-in-law of education minister Dolores Cristina, but it turns out his appointment was withdrawn.

In a statement, the Commission said it annulled the selection of three surgeon designates after the members of the selection boards for these three posts chose to "withdraw their signatures" from their own reports when queries were raised by the Commission concerning the selection process.

Of the four posts at issue, three are in general surgery (hepato pancreato biliary surgery, upper gastro-intestinal surgery, and lower gastro-intestinal surgery) and one is in ophthalmology (anterior segment surgery and glaucoma).

An appointment was made only in the case of the ophthalmology post.

In this case the Commission eventually took the decision to revoke the appointment on the grounds that the appointee did not satisfy the eligibility requirements for the post. "The Commission came to this conclusion after it gave the appointee every opportunity to present his case," the PSC said in its statement.

The PSC however said that the difficulties with these medical consultancy posts arose from a failure to properly apply clauses on eligibility in the various calls for applications which dealt with specialised medical requirements.

Although Mercieca has attempted to disassociate himself from the decision to select the 'unqualified' ophthalmologist - claiming he raised the question of ineligibility of the candidate since his name was not on the specialist register - the PSC said that all members of a selection board, regardless of how it is composed, are individually and collectively responsible for ensuring that only candidates who meet the eligibility requirements are interviewed.

On its part, the PSC said it does not screen applications to determine who is or is not eligible in terms of the call for applications. "Only cases of doubt where the selection board cannot decide on the eligibility of an applicant are referred to the Commission for its decision. Most selection boards understand their role clearly: the selection boards for the consultancy post [in ophthalmology] were exceptions."

The PSC also said it had received no indication that any of the selection board members for the ophthalmology post had any reservations about the eligibility of any candidates.