The National Industrial Court sitting in Akure has ordered the Osun State Government to reconsider the promotion of a civil servant, Olabisi Abidemi, to the position of Director on Grade Level 17, ruling that the decision not to consider him for advancement was unfair and inconsistent with established public service principles.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Kiyersohot Damulak, the court directed the Osun State Government, the Attorney General, the Head of Service, and the State Civil Service Commission to reassess Abidemi’s candidature in line with the Osun State Public Service Rules.
The court further ordered that any promotion arising from the reconsideration should take effect from the date it ought to have originally been implemented and awarded N500,000 in costs to the claimant.
The ruling is expected to reinforce the importance of fairness, transparency, and consistency in promotion processes within the public service, particularly for employees on approved leave arrangements.
According to court records, Abidemi joined the Osun State Civil Service in May 2004 and rose through the ranks to become a Deputy Director on Grade Level 16 in July 2021.
The claimant told the court that although he was on an approved leave of absence, he was listed among officers eligible to participate in the Grade Level 17 promotion interview conducted in August 2025.
He said he attended the interview as required but was neither informed of the outcome nor given reasons for his exclusion from the promotion exercise.
Abidemi subsequently wrote letters of complaint and appeal to the Head of Service seeking clarification regarding his promotion status.
In their defence, the Osun State Government and the other defendants argued that the claimant was not denied promotion because of his leave of absence, but because he failed to satisfy the requirements stipulated in the state’s Public Service Rules.
According to the defendants, promotion to the position required continuous supervision by a reporting officer, as well as annual performance evaluation reports covering a four-year period.
They further argued that Abidemi had rendered only about eight months of service to the state civil service during the preceding eight years and that officers on leave of absence are not under the supervision of reporting officers during such periods.
However, counsel to the claimant, I.A. Mikaheel, maintained that neither the Public Service Rules nor the terms governing approved leave of absence stipulated that an employee could be disqualified from promotion consideration on that basis.
In his judgment, Justice Damulak emphasised that although promotion is not an automatic entitlement, public authorities exercising discretion in employment matters must do so fairly and in accordance with established regulations.
“Although promotion is not an automatic right, the discretion exercised by public authorities in statutory employment matters must be fair, transparent, consistent and in accordance with established rules,” the judge held.
The court found that the defendants failed to provide evidence of any written policy requiring an officer to remain under the supervision of a reporting officer for four years before being considered for promotion.
Justice Damulak also noted that no promotion committee report, recommendation, or documentary explanation justifying the claimant’s exclusion was presented before the court.
“I therefore find that the defendants acted inconsistently and unfairly in refusing to consider the claimant for promotion after listing him as eligible for promotion,” the judge said.
The court further observed that Abidemi had previously been promoted to Grade Level 16 while on leave of absence and that his inclusion among candidates eligible for the 2025 promotion exercise created a legitimate expectation that the leave arrangement would not automatically disqualify him from further career progression.
The ruling underscores the obligation of public sector employers to ensure that promotion decisions are supported by clear rules, documented procedures, and equitable treatment of employees, particularly where legitimate expectations have been created through prior administrative actions.
