Monday 02 Nov 2026
Former Permanent Secretary of the dissolved Ministry of Tourism, Fathimath Shaufa.
The Employment Tribunal has ruled that the complaint filed by former Permanent Secretary (PS) of the Tourism Ministry, Fathimath Shaufa, alleging discrimination in her dismissal and subsequent non-appointment to the post, is unfounded.
The case was filed against the Civil Service Commission (CSC) over Shaufa’s dismissal during her probationary period on February 3, 2025. She had been appointed as PS of the Tourism Ministry on January 6 that year.
The Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Environment were merged on February 1 last year to form the Ministry of Tourism and Environment. With two PSs in the merged structure, CSC Secretary General Abdulla Saeed asked Shaufa to resign on the third day after the new minister took office.
When she refused, she was dismissed under the probationary dismissal rule. She alleged the dismissal was politically motivated and influenced by her close relationship with former Tourism Minister Ibrahim Faisal, who is from the same island, L. Fonadhoo. She also claimed the first interview for the new PS post was cancelled due to irregularities, and that the former PS of the Environment Ministry was selected in a second interview. She sought MVR 35,000 as legal costs, along with salary and allowances for the remainder of her employment agreement until 2030.
The CSC argued that her dismissal was carried out under the Employment Act and Civil Service Rules, within the employer’s statutory discretion to dismiss a probationary employee without notice. The Commission said there was no discrimination and no evidence supporting her claims.
Tribunal member Shuaib Yoosuf noted that High Court decisions affirm the employer’s power to dismiss without notice during probation, and that at this stage there is no requirement to establish reasonable cause. He further ruled that a close relationship with a former minister or belonging to the same island does not constitute discrimination. Citing Supreme Court decisions, he said discrimination claims require sufficient evidence, not mere statements, and none was presented in this case.
The Tribunal found that the first interview was cancelled for all candidates, and Shaufa’s non-selection in the second interview did not amount to discrimination. There was no document or evidence showing she was treated unfairly.
Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the CSC had not taken any discriminatory administrative action against Shaufa, and there was no legal basis to recover the MVR 35,000 she requested as salary, allowances, or attorney’s fees for the remainder of her employment agreement.
