.1 of the Constitution—To select the best ormost suitable candidate— Candidates entitled to equal treatment
of the Constitution—Discretion of the said Commission—Improper or defective exercise of such discretion—Will lead to the annulment by the Court of a decision taken as a result of improper or defective exercise of such discretion—All relevant factors must be taken into account—On the contrary, irrelevant factors must not—Recommendations by the Head of the Department concerned—Due weight must be given thereto—Not to be disregarded without adequate reasons properly recorded—Views of the Head of the Department must be sought in a proper case at the proper time—Recommendations emanating from the Minister cannot be said to have done away with the need to attribute proper weight to those of the Head of Department or to seek his views at the proper time—Because in cases of appointments (or promotions) in the public service the views of a political personality such as the Minister are no substitute for the views or recommendations of the public officer who is the Head of a particular Department and who is the person primarily responsiblefor the proper functioning of the branch of the public service
him—And for making recommendations about those serving
him—See, also, below. Public Officers—Appointments—Recourses
of the Constitution against the validity of the appointment of the Interested Party to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II — 155 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Appointment annulled as made contrary to law (i.e. not in the proper exercise of thepowers vested intheRespondent Commission
of the Constitution, contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution and contrary to the relevant principles of Administrative Law), and in excess and abuse of powers—See, also,
Public Officers above; and
Public Service Commission below. Public Service Commission—Its paramount duty
.1 of the Constitution in cases of appointments or promotions in the public service—To select the best candidate—Discretion— Improper or defective exercise of such discretion—See, also,
Public Officers (twice) above. Public Service—See above. Appointments—Of public officers—See above. Administrative and constitutional Law—Recourse
of the Constitution—Legitimate interest—"Existing legitimate interest adversely and directly affected" by the decision, act or omission complained of—Article 146.2 of the Constitution— Meaning and scope of the said expression—See, also,
Public Officers above—In the present case such legitimate interest of theApplicants has been adversely and directly affected by the appointment complained of. Administrative and Constitutional Law—Recourse
ofthe Constitution—Time requiredfor thefilingof such recourse— Period of seventy-five days—Method of computation of such period—Article 146.3 of the Constitution. Administrative Law—Administrative decisions—Contrary to law and in excess and abuse of powers—Appointment in thepublic service annulled
as the produce of improper and defective exercise of the discretionary power vested in the Respondent Commission, (
Public Officers; Administrative Law. Abuse of powers—Abuse and excess of powers—See above. 156 Discretion—Discretionary powers—Improper or defective exercise of—See above Excess of powers—Excess and abuse of powers—See above Recommendations—Emanating from the Head of Department— From the Minister—See above
Public Officers Legitimate Interest—Within See above Article 146 2 of the Constitution— Head of Department—Recommendations by the Head of Department— Due weight to be given—See
Public Officers, above Minister—Recommendations emanating from a Minister—Not a substitute for those emanating from the Head of Department— See
Public Officers, abo\e. Recourse
of the Constitution—Legitimate interest— Article 146 2—Time required—Article 146 3—"Contrary to Law", 'excess and abuse of power"—See above. Time—Period of seventy-fixe days requiredfor the filing of arecourse
of the Constitution—Article 146.3 of the Constitution—Method of computation—See above In these two recourses
Public Service Commission, the two Applicants complain against the validity of the appoint ment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II,of the Interested Party Nicos Artemiou, such appointment having been decided by the said Commission on the 11th October, 1965, and published in the Official Gazette on the 4th November, 1965 On the 11th February, 1965, theCouncil of Ministers approved the filling of a vacancy in the post of Veterinary Officer, Class //, in the Department of Veterinary Services, which is a first entry and promotion post As a result and in an effort to appoint the most suitable person, theRespondent Commission decided that the vacancy in question should be advertised and, in effect, the relevant advertisement appeared in theOfficial Gazette on the 25th February, 1965, and, as it is the practice, it incorporated the scheme of service for the post concerned. As a result, there were three Applicants for such post the two Applicants in the present proceedings and the aforesaid 157 1967 Feb 25 THEOFANIS HJISAWA & ANOTHER ν REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICB COMMISSION) 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) Interested Party. It would seem that the recommendations of the Head of Department, i.e. the Director of the Department of the Veterinary Services, were most adverse to the Interested Party, although the said Director, in his letter of the 13th March, 1965, stated that he was unable to recommend the'appointment of any newly qualified veterinary surgeon to the post of veterinary officer, such post to be left for promotion of Assistant Veterinary Officers after they have gained the necessary experience. On the 12th May, 1965, the Respondent Commission decided "that none of the three candidates was suitable for the post of veterinary officer, bearing in mind that Government's policy is that graduate veterinarians without previous post-graduate experience should be appointed as assistant veterinary officers and be promoted to the post of veterinary officer, class II, after they have acquired post-graduate experience". The three Applicants-candidates were in due course informed accordingly that they had not been selected for appointment to the post of veterinary officer, Class II. Eventually, the Respondent Commission decided on the 10th June, 1965 to appoint the said three Applicants to three of the vacancies in the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer. As the posts in question are temporary posts,the two Applicants in the present recourses were offered Appointment on a month to month basis, whereas the Interested Party—who was a permanent Veterinary Assistant—was offered a secondment thereto. The two Applicants in these proceedings accepted the appointment offered to them, whereas the Interested Party, in spite of repeated reminders and warnings, failed to give any reply to the said offer. The Commission having noted the silence of the Interested Party, decided on the 6th September, 1965, to cancel the offer made to him for secondment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer as aforesaid. On the 28th September, 1965, the Interested Party applied to the Respondent Commission for a re-examination of his original application and for an appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II; he requested that his seventeen years' service in the government be taken into account in his favour. This application of the Interested Party was strongly recommended by the Minister of Agriculture. On the llth October 1965, the Commission, yielding to the 158 recommendations of the Minister and without consulting the Head of the Department (i.e. the Director of the Department of Veterinary Services) decided by majority of three to two to appoint the Interested Party to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II as per hisApplication. Thisappointment was published in the Official Gazette of the 4th November, 1965. It is against this appointment that the two recourses were made and filed on the 18th January, 1966, whereby the two Applicants challenge its validity. It was argued, inter alia> by counsel on behalf of the Interested Party that the Applicants were not legitimated in making these recourses because they did not challenge the decision of the Respondents dated the 12th May, 1965, not to appoint them (supra) and because they subsequently accepted appointments as Assistant Veterinary Officers (supra). Paragraph 2 of Article 146 of the Constitution provides: "Such a recourse may be made by a person whose anyexisting legitimate interest, which he has either as a person or by virtue of being a member of a community, is adversely and directly affected by such decision or act or omission". The Court in annulling the appointment of the Interested Party: Held, I. As to the question of time
The appointment complained of was published in the official Gazette on the 4th November', 1965, and these recourses were filed on the 18th January, 1966. In accordance with the method adopted in the caseHoly See ofKitium andthe Municipal Council Limassol, 1 R.S.C.C. 15, for the purpose of computing the period of seventy-five days
.3 of the Constitution, these recourses were filed on the last day of such period and are, therefore, within time. Held, II. As to the issue of the legitimate interest,
.2 of the Constitution—but it relates only to the suitability for appointment of candidates who appear to be qualified
the relevant scheme of service; therefore, such policy could not operate to disqualify the Applicants from being candidates for the post in question and, consequently from being entitled,
of the Constitution, this Court, as an Administrative Court, cannot proceed to annul the sub judice decision on the strength of an admission— such as the one made by counsel for the State; it has to be satisfied itself about the validity or invalidity of the sub judice decision (see Dafnides and the Republic (1964 C.L.R. 180). So, though what counsel for the State has conceded is, indeed, a consideration to be borne duly in mind, I have still to decide myself on the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the Interested Party, on the basis of all the material be fore me.
.1 of the Constitution, of appointing to the public office concerned the most suitable candidate (see Theodossiou and the Republic,supra, Georghiades and the Republic
(supra), namely, the safeguarding of the efficiency and proper functioning of the public service (see Nedjati and the Republic) 2 R.S.C.C. 78, at p. 82. (c) It follows, therefore, that the sub judice appointment of the Interested Party has to be annulled.
him and for making recommendations about those serving
him. (b) The views of the Minister, which he, obviously, felt that he had to place before the Commission, in order to inform it fully of the position as he saw it, could only be acted upon to the extent to which it was possible to do so within the proper. limits of the exercise of the relevant competence of the Commission. They could not be taken—and no doubt they were never intended—to be a licence to the' Commission to exceed such limits. 163 COMMISSION) 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC
of the Constitution, contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution, supra, and contrary to the relevant principles of Administrative Law) and in excess and abuse of powers. ( P U B L I C SERVICE COMMISSION) Decision complained of declared null and void. Cases referred to: The Holy See of Kitturn and the Municipal Council Limassol, I R.S.C.C.15, principles laid down as to the method of computation of the seventy-five days period in Article 146.3 of the Constitution, applied; Papapetrou and The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 61 applied; Papasavvas and The Republic,reported in this Part at p. Ill ante, applied: Dafnides and The Republic, 1964 C.L.R. 180, applied; Theodossiou and The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 44 at p. 47, applied; Georgh'tades and The Republic
Not. No. 207 of 25.2.1965 and notwithstanding the fact that he is only a new graduate and does not possess the additional qualifications required by the approved scheme of service for the post of Veterinary Officer, Class I.
which comes the Department of Veterinary Services, wrote a letter to the Commission on the subject of the three candidates before it (see exhibit 11), the relevant parts of which read as follows: "2. Willi respect to Mr. Artemiou's application we have no way of verifying his claim of possession of additional qualifications and we believe that the Public Service Commission is the more appropriate Authority to probe into this matter, nor do we think that it is within our jurisdiction to adjudicate whether Mr. Artemiou's qualifications satisfy the requirements of para. 3 of the Notification
which it is stated that 'Preference will be given to those who possess post graduate training or to those who have had previous experience'. This we believe is something for the Public Service Commission to establish and decide upon.
which Mr. Artemiou was not found suitable for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II". On the 6th September, 1965, the Commission — having noted (see the mimutes exhibit 9) that the Interested Party had been offered secondment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer, by letter dated 23rd June : 1965, to which he had not replied, and that he had been asked by letter dated the 23rd July, 1965, to reply to such offer, and informed that if he did not reply by the 30th July, 1965, the offer made to him would be cancelled, and that in spite of that he had still failed to furnish a reply —decided to cancel the offer made to the Interested Party for secondment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer. On the 15th September, 1965, the Minister of Argiculture addressed a further letter to the Commission, (see exhibit 13) the relevant part of which reads as follows: "2. You will recollect that I wrote to you my letter No. P.V. 41 of the 27th July, 1965,"- i . e . exhibit 10, a b o v e "in which I specifically requested you, if possible, to 172 reconsider your decision for appointing Mr. Artemiou to the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer and appoint him to the post of Veterinary Officer. 3. My follows: reasons for doing so may be summarized as (
.3 of the Constitution, these recourses were filed on the last date of such period and are, therefore, within time. It is convenient to deal, first, with the objection taken by counsel for the Interested Party to the effect that the Applicants do not satisfy the requirements of legitimate interest —as laid down by Article 146.2 of the Constitution — so as to be entitled to institute these proceedings. He has argued, in support of such objection, that the Applicants were not legitimated in making these recourses because they did not challenge the decision of the Commission not to appoint them, which was taken on the 12th May, 1965, (see exhibit 7) and because they subsequently accepted appointments as Assistant Veterinary Officers; moreover, he has argued that the Applicants were not, themselves, qualified for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II, in view of the aforementioned policy, laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture, regarding the making of appointments to such post, namely, that those to be appointed ought to possess post-graduate experience; and, further, 174 that the Applicants were not qualified for appointment to the post concerned because they did not satisfy the requirements of the relevant Scheme of Service (see exhibit 1) in that they did not possess ability to control subordinate staff. 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER I am of the opinion, in the light of Papapetrou and The Republic (2 R.S.C.C. p. 61), that once the Applicants had applied for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II, their existing legitimate interest, as candidates, was adversely and directly affected, in the sence of Article 146.2, by the appointment of the Interested Party, which was made by the Public Service Commission on further and final consideration of the matter of the vacancy in question; and it has been, indeed, the case for both the Respondent and the Interested Party that theCommission onthe 11thOctober, 1965 (see its minutes, exhibit 15) reconsidered such matter once again, and decided to appoint to the post concerned the Interested Party. Nor was the legitimate interest of the Applicants extinguished by their acceptance of appointments to the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer, because il is obvious that they were so appointed by way of an intermediary stage towards becoming eventually Veterinary Officers, Class II; so they continued possessing an interest in the existing vacancy in such post and the subjudice appointment of the Interested Party has prejudiced their own advancement (see Papasavvas and The Republic, Case 185/66)*. The aforementioned policy of the Ministry of Argiculture, regarding appointments to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II, does not amount to a consideration which refers to the essential qualifications of candidates for such a post, but it relates only to the suitability for appointment of candidates whoappear tobequalified
therelevant SchemeofService; therefore, such policy could not operate so as to disqualify the Applicants from being candidates for the post in question and, consequently, from being entitled,
Regarding the ability to control staff, which is required as a qualification
the relevant Scheme of Service, I cannot find, on the basis of the material before me,that the Applicants did not possess such qualification, especially as they had been •Reported ante at p.111. 175 v. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER working in the Department of Veterinary Services for some time prior to their applications for appointment; it was up to the Commission, however, to examine whether or not they did possess such ability to a degree sufficient to enable them to be selected for appointment. v. REPUBLIC ( P U B L I C SERVICE COMMISSION) Having found, as above, that the Applicants were entitled
.2 to make the present recourses, against the appointment of the Interested Party, I shall proceed now to examine the validity of such appointment. Counsel for Respondent, who has acted in the fair and detached manner befitting counsel appearing on behalf of the State in proceedings of the present nature, has conceded that the Commission, although acting bona fide, has exceeded, to some extent, the proper limits of its discretion, by not asking — before reaching a new decision on the 11th October, 1965 — for supplementary information concerning the Applicants as well, and by not reconsidering afresh all three of them, the Applicants and the Interested Party, as candidates for the post in question. Counsel for the Interested Party, on the other hand, has submitted that, though the procedure which led to the decision of the 11th October, 1965,may have left something to be desired, no abuse or excess of powers of the Commission has been established or has, indeed, taken place at all. In a recourse
,this Court, as an Administrative Court, cannot proceed to annul the sub judice decision on the strength of an admission — such as the one made by counsel for the Respondent in the present proceedings; it has to be satisfied itself about the validity or invalidity of the sud judice decision (see Dafnides and The Republic, 1964 C.L.R. 180). So, though what counsel for Respondent has conceded is, indeed, a consideration to be borne duly in mind, 1 have still to decide myself on the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the Interested Party, on the basis of all the material before the Court. In doing so it would be very useful to examine, first, what conclusions are to be drawn about the essential nature of the relevant action of the Respondent Commission: It is quite clear that on the 11th October, 1965, when its sub judice decision was taken, the Commission reverted to its previous decisions on the matter; this is obvious from the 176 reference made in the relevant minutes (exhibit 15) to the past decisions of the Commission, of the 12th May, 1965, ahd the 28th July, 1965 (exhibits 7 and 12). But, I cannot agree with the view, which has been advanced in these proceedings, that on the 11th October, 1965, the Commission was reconsidering fully, ab initio, the matter of the candidatures of the Applicants and the Interested Party with a view to appointing the most suitable out of them to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II. When the sequence of relevant events is viewed as a whole, from the time when the post concerned was advertised down to the appointment of the Interested Party, one cannot but reach the conclusion that, after the Interested Party had not accepted appointment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer, and the Minister of Argiculture had intervened in his favour, the Commission was primarily concerned with the issue of whether of not it could see its way to appointing him directly to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II, in view of special considerations personal to him, as they were put forward by the said Minister. On the material before the Court, I find myself quite unable to accept that on the 11th October, 1965, the Commission was, in fact, examining, in the usual course and in the proper manner, the question of thefilling of the vacancy in the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II, and was trying to reach a decision as to who out of the three candidates before it was the most suitable for appointment to such post, as it was its duty to do (see Theodossiou and The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C p. 44, at p. 47). In the Commission's minutes of the 11th October, 1965, there is not to be found even a single word to the effect that the Interested Party was considered to be the most suitable, in the interests of the service, out of the three candidates before the Commission, or that any comparison, for the purpose, of such candidates was made atall; on thecontrary,the grounds on which relied the majority of the Commission — (and it is the decision of this majority which is the subject-matter of this recourse as constituting, in law, the decision of the Commission) — indicate that the decision to appoint the Interested Party wasreached, only, in recognition of the personal qualities of the Interested Party. Had such personal qualities been relied upon in order to select the Interested Party as the most suitable out of the 177 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) candidates before the Commission this would have been quite a proper course for the Commission to have followed. But this wasnot soin the present instance; the Interested Party had been found twice already, by the Commission, on the 12th May and 28th July, 1965 (see exhibits 7 and 12) not to be a suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II; he was found to be unsuitable not due to absence of the character qualities on the strength of which it was decided to appoint him to the said post on the 11th October, 1965, but due to his not possessing post-graduate experience as a Veterinarian. Such experience was deemed necessary because of the relevant, already-mentioned, policy of the Ministry of Agriculture in the matter. " The aforesaid policy was obviously laid down in order to serve the best interests of the service, and of the public, and it appears that theCommission adopted itasa guide to suitability for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II, as it was, indeed, properly entitled to do. In doing so the Commission acted, also, in accordance with the views— to the same effect asthe said policy—of the Head ofthe Department of Veterinary Services, as expressed in his letter dated the 13th May, 1965 (see exhibit 16). As a result, the Ministry of Agriculture proposed to the Council of Ministers the filling of existing vacancies in the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer, so that recently graduated Veterinarians, such as the Applicants and the Interested Party, could gain post-graduate experience before becoming Veterinary Officers; and the Council of Ministers, as the supreme Executive Organ in the State, agreed to this, thus endorsing, also, the policy concerned.. It appears that at the previous meetings of the Commission, of the 12th May and 28th July, 1965, the service of the Interested Party, in the Department of Veterinary Services, before he qualified as a Veterinarian at the end of December, 1964, had not been considered by the Commission as being experience of such a nature as to do away with the need for post-graduate experience after qualification; and in the sub judice decision, itself, of the Commission, dated the 11th October, 1965, there is nothing being mentioned to the effect that, on further consideration of the matter, it was found that the experience of the Interested Party before he qualified as a Veterinarian was such as would enable the Commission to 178 deem him suitable for appointment as Veterinary Officer, Class II, without the post-graduate experience required in the interests of the service by the relevant, above-referred to, policy. Yet the Interested Party, though not possessing the desirable for suitability post-graduate experience, and having refused to serve first in the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer, like the Applicants, with a view to his becoming suitable for appointment to Veterinary Officer, Class II, was in the end, on the 11th October, 1965, appointed to the latter post, on the ground — see exhibit 15—that the Minister of Agriculture had, in his letter of the 15th September, 1965, (exhibit 13) "stated clearly that Mr. Artemiou is a very hard-working officer, devoted to his duties and that his integrity is unquestionable". This, however, was a case not of character unsuitability but of professional unsuitability, from the point of view of the lack of the necessary post-graduate professional experience. The said personal qualities of the Interested Party — most important though they could have been for his selection for appointment had he been suitable for such appointment from the point of view of post-graduate experience—could not do away with the lack of the relevant experience which was required in the interests of the service. The proper conclusion to be reached from the above analysis of the essential nature of the relevant action of the Respondent Commission,is,inmyopinion,that theCommission in appointing the Interested Party veered off the course of its paramount duty,
of the Constitution, of appointing to the public office concerned the most suitable candidate (see Theodossiou and The Republic, supra; Georghiades and The Republic,
, namely, the safeguarding of the efficiency and proper functioning of the public service (see Nedjati and The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C, p. 78 at p. 82). It follows, therefore, that the sub judice appointment of the Interested Party has to be annulled.' ' ' . Moreover, I am of the view that the Commission, in the 179 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC ( P U B L I C SERVICE COMMISSION) manner in which it has appointed the Interested Party, has proceeded toactcontrary toanother of the objects of its relevant powers, namely, the protection of the legitimate interests of individual holders of public offices, (see Nedjati and The Republic, supra); such holders being in the present instance the Applicants. Though both they and the Interested Party had been found, originally, by the Commission, as unsuitable for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II, in view of their not possessing professional post-graduate experience, and though the two Applicants were led, as a result, to accept appointments as Assistant Veterinary Officers, in order to acquire, first, the necessary professional experience, the Commission, after the Interested Party «ad not even replied to an offer for appointnient to the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer, proceeded to disregard his non-possession of postgraduate experience, on the ground of character qualifications totally unconnected with such experience, and to appoint him over the heads of the Applicants. In doing so, the Commission has also contravened Article 28 of the Constitution, by not affording equal treatment to the Applicants and the Interested Party and by treating the Interested Party more favourably without sufficient grounds justifying such a course. Thus, once again I have been led to the conclusion that the sub judice appointment of the Interested Party has to be annulled. A further reason making it necessary to annul the said appointnient isthefact that the recommendations of the Head of Department, i.e.of the Director of the Department of Veterinary Services, were not followed, and in adopting such a course the Commission has not recorded in its relevant minutes any adequate reasoning in support thereof. The said Head of Department had advised against the appointment of a Veterinary Officer, Class II, without postgraduate experience, (see his letter of the 13th May, 1965, exhibit 16); yet the Commission proceeded to do so by appointing the Interested Party, merely on the ground of his character qualities, which were irrelevant to the issue of post-graduate experience. Furthermore, the Head of Department had made a favourable report jn relation tp the Applicants (see exhibit 17) and a non-rfavourable one in relation to the 180 Interested Party (see exhibit 16). Yet, the Commission, without recording any adequate reason, disregarded the recommendations of the Head of Department and appointed the Interested Party. The need for the Commission to follow the recommendations of Heads of Departments, and the consequences of not doing so and not giving adequate reasons therefor, have been gone into recently in the case of Lardis and The Republic (Case 144/65, not reported yet)*; and what has been stated in the Judgment in that Case need not be repeated all over once again. In the light thereof I have no doubt that the sub judice decision has been reached in a manner leading to the inevitable conclusion that it has to be annulled as being in abuse and excess of powers. Also, the Commission, when deciding to appoint the Interested Party, has failed to pay any regard to a most material consideration in not inviting the Head of the Department concerned to express his views in relation to the developmenjs which supervened since the 12th May,1965, when it was decided that all three candidates —the Applicant and the Interested Party — were not suitable, then, for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer, Class II. That the said views were not requested has been frankly admitted by Mr. Y. Louca, a member of the Commission, who has given evidence in this Case. Such views would have constituted a most material consideration, to be given due weight by the Commission. The Head of Department would have reported,inter alia,on the performance of the two Applicants, in the meantime,asAssistant Veterinary Officers, as well as regarding the services, during the same period, of the Interested Party; also he would express his views onthemattersraised bythe Minister of Agriculture in relation to the Interested Party. In my opinion no proper reconsideration of the matter was possible on the 11th October, 1965, without seekingfirst the views of the Head of the Department concerned. It has been repeatedly laid down in past cases that an administrative organ, in reaching a decision has to pay due regard to all relevant considerations (see, inter alia, Saruhan and The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. p. 133; Constantinou and The Greek Communal Chamber,
him and for making recommendations about those serving in such branch. The relevant communications of the Minister of Agriculture were addressed by him to the Commission for the purpose of drawing attention to certain special personal considerations affecting the Interested Party, who was a member of the staff of a Department coming
his Ministry. But such communications did not, also, entitle the Commission to take 182 consequent action beyond, or incosistent with, the proper exercise of its powers, as it has done. The views of the Minister, which he, obviously, felt that he had to place before the Commission, in order to inform it fully of the position as he saw it, could only be acted upon to the extent to which it was possible to do so within the proper limits of the exercise of the relevant competence of the Commission. They could not be taken — and no doubt they were never intended — to be a licence to the Commission to exceed such limits. For all the foregoing reasons in this Judgment, I am of the opinion that the appointment of the Interested Party has to be declared to be null and void and of no effect whatsoever, as made contrary to law (i.e. not in the proper exercise of the powers
of the Constitution, contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution, and contrary to the relevant principles of Administrative Law) and in excess and abuse of powers. It is up to the Commission to consider, again, if need be, the filling of the vacancy, thus created, in the post concerned, in the light of this Judgment and in the light of all considerations of law and fact properly applicable to such matter. Regarding costs, I have reached the conclusion that the Applicants are entitled to a sum of £40.—against their costs, for both Cases, including the costs awarded on the 11th July, 1966, against the Interested Party, which I assess at £10; so he will pay £10 costs to Applicants and the remainder, £30, will be borne by Respondent. Decisioncomplainedof declared null andvoid. Order for costs as aforesaid. 183 1967 Feb. 25 THEOFANIS HJISAVVA & ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION)
AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.