Right of appeal must be practical and effective – recommendation to MCAST to improve recruitment practices

Right of appeal must be practical and effective – recommendation to MCAST to improve recruitment practices

Published April 30, 2026

The Commissioner for Education has concluded an investigation into a complaint concerning a recruitment process at the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST), highlighting the importance of ensuring that the right of appeal of applicants for a post is practical and effective.

The complaint

The complainant applied for a full-time teaching post in Conservation and Restoration at MCAST. Following the interviews, he was informed that although he had passed the interview, the post was being offered to another candidate who obtained a higher mark.

The complainant raised two grievances with the Ombudsman’s Office. First, that he was not provided with the necessary information in time to enable him to lodge an appeal. Second, that he was treated unfairly during the selection process given his qualifications and experience.

Facts and findings

The investigation confirmed that the complainant was informed of the outcome through an email sent from a non-monitored account, which did not allow replies, and that this initial communication did not include any information on how to appeal the decision or how to request further details.

Although internal procedures provide a ten working day period to lodge an appeal, the complainant’s attempt to seek clarification was made through the same email channel, and the relevant information was only forthcoming after the deadline had passed. He was accordingly informed that the time limit for filing an appeal had expired.

Following the intervention of the Office of the Ombudsman, MCAST accepted to process the appeal and set up an Appeals Board. However, delays persisted, including a one-month gap between the Appeals Board decision and its communication to the complainant.

On the substance of the selection process, the Commissioner carried out a detailed examination of the interview records, the marking system and the marks actually allocated to all the candidates. No irregularities or evidence of maladministration were identified in the assessment or ranking of candidates.

The investigation therefore distinguished between two phases: the interviews, marking and selection process itself was found to be fair; however, the manner in which the outcome was communicated failed to provide the complainant with a real opportunity to exercise his right of appeal.

Conclusion and recommendations

The Commissioner concluded that the lack of clear information and the use of inappropriate communication channels effectively deprived the complainant of his right to appeal. This constituted an unreasonable and unjust administrative practice.

It was recommended that MCAST ensure that all candidates are clearly informed of their right to appeal, including the applicable time frame, the procedure to follow, and the appropriate contact details.

The Commissioner also recommended that MCAST reviews its internal H.R. communication practices, particularly in the handling of email correspondence, to ensure timely and effective communication with applicants.

The findings were formally communicated to the Principal of MCAST, with the Commissioner indicating that the report will be published in the public interest in line with Article 29(2) of the Ombudsman Act.