An Army officer was entitled to know what process was used to deny him the post of Captain of the Guard in the Houses of the Oireachtas, the High Court has heard.
Captain Alan Kearney had been nominated for the job, but this was later cancelled in what he claims was a Kafkaesque way without him knowing the reasons why.
The Captain of the Guard performs a sensitive security role and certain ceremonial duties in the Oireachtas. The role is ultimately appointed by the Taoiseach following security clearance and a recommendation of appointees from the Commission of the Houses of the Oireachtas (CHO).
Capt Kearney, who is based at the Army's Curragh Training Camp Base Logistics in Co Kildare, brought judicial review proceedings in December 2021 against the Taoiseach, the CHO, the Garda Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General.
He claimed the Garda Commissioner failed, refused, or neglected to process his security clearance for the job in a timely and expeditious manner.
He also sought an order quashing the decision of the CHO on November 26th, 2021, not to proceed with his nomination to the post.
The respondents deny his claims.
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter began hearing arguments by lawyers for Capt Kearney and the respondents.
Captn Kearney said that in April 2021 he was advised he was the preferred candidate for the job subject to approval by the Taoiseach.
However, after he submitted a requisite Garda Vetting Form, his home was subject to a search and nothing untoward was found. The court heard he was involved in shooting and hunting and has three licensed firearms.
He said the Defence Forces Military Police informed him that following information received from gardaí that "my name was mentioned in association with a Garda investigation concerning a former member of the Defence Forces who had previously served in my unit".
He said no charges had been brought against him and he has "no civil convictions and I value my good name and standing".
In November, he was told his application would go no further.
Gerard Humpheys SC, for Capt Kearney, said at the heart of the case was the absence of a fair and transparent process.
As part of the pre-trial disclosure of documents, counsel said, his side discovered there was a "secret process" by certain of the respondents in relation to his application.
"He now finds himself in a Kafkaesque situation where there is something going on but he does not know what it is", he said.
Counsel said his client also faced charges before a military service tribunal in relation to the historical storage of ammunition but he had not faced any charges under the Offences Against the State Act.
Mark Connaughton SC, for the CHO, said Captn Kearney was "never more than a preferred candidate" subject to security clearance and after which there would still have to be a statutory consultation before a recommendation was made to the Taoiseach.
Counsel said this was not a disciplinary procedure but a recruitment process which has legal protections against discrimination.
Captn Kearney was not involved in a contractual process and he should have had a clear understanding that "he was guaranteed nothing out of this until the full process was completed", he said.
While Captn Kearney had made a pejorative reference to a "secret process", counsel said all communications with him were fully forthright and nothing was held back from him.
Counsel said Captn Kearney had also separately brought proceedings against the Minister for Defence and the State challenging his suspension from his army post which had taken place sometime in August 2021.
Despite the fact that he was applying for one of the most senior roles in the Houses of the Oireachtas, he had pressed for a decision on his application at the same time as he was in possession of quite detailed knowledge about matters which were eventually disclosed as part of court proceedings .
However, he had not shared that knowledge with the respondents until he brought these proceedings, counsel said.
The case continues.
