(1987)3 CLR 682 1987 May 7 [MALACHTOS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION IOANNIS LOIZIDES, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, Respondent. (Case No. 182/77). Educational Officers -Appointments - First entry post- Fact that all candidates come from the service does not convert it into a promotion post - Respondents correctly followed procedure of section 28, instead of that of section 35 of the Public Educational Service Law 10/69-Applicant holding a more senior post to that of the interested parties - Respondent not bound to give special reasons why the interested parties were preferred to the applicant. By means of this recourse the applicant challenges the appointment of the interested party to the post of Inspector, 1st Grade, Secondary Education, instead of the applicant. Held, dismissing the recourse:

(1)The complaint that the respondents acted contrary to section 35 of Law 10/69 by failing to take into consideration the personal files and confidential reports of the parties and instead acted according to section 28 of the same law cannot be accepted. Indeed, the scheme of service for the post in question shows that it is a first entry post and, therefore, the respondents followed the correct procedure. The fact that all candidates were from the service does not convert it into a promotion post. Moreover, the statement in the minutes of the respondents on the light of all material concerning the candidates shows that such files were before the respondents.

(2)The argument that the statement in the minutes of the respondents that the views of the Director of Education coincided with the views of the «appropriate authority» (i.e. the Minister of Education) affords evidence of interference by the Minister with respondents' discretion must fail, because there is nothing in such minutes, which leads to a conclusion of such interference or to a conclusion that the respondents were influenced by the Minister.

(3)As the post in question was a first entry post, the respondents were not bound, notwithstanding the fact that applicant held at the time a more senior post than that held by the interested parties, to give special reasons why the interested parties were preferred instead of the applicant. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: Skarparis v. Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to appoint the interested parties to the post of Inspector, 1st Grade, Secondary Education, in preference and instead of the applicant. E. Efstathiou, for the applicant. A.S. Angelides, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant seeks a declaration of the Court that the decision of the respondent published in the official Gazette of the Republic No. 717 dated 22.4.77, to appoint to the post of Inspector, 1st Grade, Secondary Education, the interested parties, namely, 1.Aris Georghiou and
2. Andreas Phylactou, instead of the applicant, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The facts of the case so far as relevant, shortly put are the following: Two vacancies for the post of Inspector 1st Grade Secondary Education for Philological Subjects, were advertised in the official Gazette of the Republic and nine applications were submitted, including that of the applicant and the two interested parties. The candidates were interviewed by the respondent Committee on 28.3.
3. At its meeting of 5.4.77, the Director of Education who was present, expressed his views which, according to the minutes of the said meeting, coincided with the views of the appropriate authority, to the effect that the interested parties prevailed over the other candidates. The Chairman and the members of the Committee came to the conclusion that in the light of all the material before them and the opinion formed at the personal interviews, A. Georghiou and A. Phylactou, the interested parties, were the most suitable for appointment to the post in question, and decided and appointed them on probation with effect as from 15.4.
4. As a result the applicant filed the present recourse. The first argument on behalf of the applicant is that the respondent Committee acted contrary to section 35 of the Public Educational Service Law 1969 Law 10/69, in that they failed to take into consideration the personal files and the confidential reports of the parties and instead acted according to section 28 of the law by following the criteria for first entry posts. It is clear from the relevant scheme of service that the post of Inspector was not a promotion post but a first entry post which was accordingly advertised by virtue of section 26

(1)of Law 10/69 in, the official Gazette of the Republic. The fact that all candidates were already in the educational service does not convert the post into a promotion post, which would require only persons in the immediately lower post to apply. In the circumstances, therefore, the procedure followed was the correct one and was in accordance with the Law. Nevertheless, it is clear from the expression appearing in the minutes of the sub judice decision in the light of all the material concerning the candidates», that such files were in fact before the respondent Committee. See Costas Skarparis v. The Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R. 1O6 at p. 112. It was further argued that the reference to the appropriate authority in the minutes of the sub judice decision which in law is the Minister of Education, is evidence of interference by the Minister with the discretion of the respondent Committee. There is nothing in the relevant minutes which leads to the conclusion that the respondent Committee were influenced by the views of the appropriate authority or that there was any interference by the Minister with the exercise of their discretion. Therefore, this argument must also fail. Finally, it was argued that since applicant held a more senior post to the interested parties, reasons ought to have been given why the interested parties were preferred instead of the applicant. There is no dispute that the applicant held a senior post. In the present case, however, as the post in question was a first entry post I consider that there was no requirement for the respondent Committee to give special reasons as to why the applicant was not preferred although he was holding at the time a senior post in the educational service than the two interested parties. In conclusion, I find that it was reasonably open to the respondent Committee to reach the decision complained of and that the said decision was duly reasoned. Furthermore, I must say that the applicant failed to establish striking superiority over the interested parties so as to entitle this Court to interfere with the decision of the respondent Committee. For the reasons stated above, this recourse fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο