State’s attempt to dismiss online selection case fails

The National National

The State has failed in its attempts to have the court dismiss a University of PNG case concerning online selection criteria following a National Court ruling on Thursday.
Judge Oagile Key Dingake in a six-page judgement refused to dismiss the UPNG case saying the state’s application did not have merit.
Justice Dingake disagreed with the State’s submission that there was no reasonable cause of action and that UPNG’s case was futile, and/or a shame destined to fail if the matter proceeded to trial.
State lawyer Henry Monei told the court during submissions in May that UPNG had failed to comply with Section 5 of the Claims By and Against the State Act.
He also asked the court to dismiss UPNG’s application for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and for being frivolous and vexatious. He represented the Department of Higher Education Research and Technology Secretary Fr Jan Czuba, Minister for Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology Pila Niningi, and the State in the case.
UPNG objected, saying section 5 was not needed, as they were only seeking declaratory orders that the university council was the legitimate authority to set the quota and selection criteria to admit students into its programmes.
Justice Dingake, after considering submissions from parties and the relevant law in his judgement, said: “I am of the view that the plaintiff (UPNG) is not making any claim against the state for the purpose of the claims by and against the State Act, and it was not necessary to give notice under section 5 of the intention to make a claim against the state. The plaintiff’s cause of action is clear from a reading of the originating summons and/or the affidavits in support of the relief sought.
“Reading the originating summons and or the affidavits filed in support of the plaintiff’s cause of action is inter alia, that its council is the legitimate authority to select students and grant permission to programmes at the university, but the first (Czuba) and second defendants (Niningi) are interfering with the powers of the council in a manner that is illegal,” he said. “This is much clear from the originating summons alone.”
According to a copy of the originating summons, UPNG is seeking a declaration that the university council is the legitimate authority to set the quota and the selection criteria to admit students into its programmes. It is also seeking a permanent injunction to restrain Czuba and Niningi, whether by themselves or by their servants or agents, from:

  • Conducting activities which compete against and undermine the interests and objectives of UPNG;
  • withdrawing Tertiary Education Student Assistance Scheme scholarships to any student on the UPNG list selected by itself and not the department despite meeting the Grade Point Average requirements; and
  • Interfering in the academic activities of UPNG.

The substantive matter is still pending in the National Court.