clr/1968/1968_3_374.pdf

(3)of the Teachers of Secondary Communal Schools'Law [963 (Greek Communal Chamber Law No. 7 of 1963^—Scope and effect. By these recourses the Applicants challenge the validity of the decision ofthe Respondent 2Committee of Educational Service whereby they have appointed to the post of Inspector of Education, 1st Grade the.Interested Parties instead of, and in preference to, them. After reviewing the facts and circumstances, of these cases, the Court dismissing the recourses :Held,

(1). The principles governing the judicial review of appointments, including promotions, in the public service, are illustrated by numerous decisions. Briefly stated they are as follows: It is the duty of the appointing authority to select and appoint the most suitable candidate. Accordingly seniority isrelevant, but not theonly, or indeed the main, consideration. The first duty of this Court in reviewing appointments or promotions istoseewhethertheappointing authority exercised itsdiscretionary power inconformity with statutory provisions and the rules and requirements of administrative law general- 375 1968 July 13 D R . PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER) 1968 July 13 D R . PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER ly, including good faith. So long as the authority acted within those limits the Court cannot interfere; it cannot substitute its own opinion as to the merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority. v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER)

(2)(

1. a)A point was made about "superior educational qualifications" of the Applicants as compared to those of one of the appointees. By definition a "qualification" is "a quality, accomplishment, etc., which qualifies or fits a person for someoffice orfunction". (ShorterOxford Dictionary). Every diploma or degree signifies an educational accomplishment. But if the course of a study as a result of which it was obtained is not relevant to, or goes beyond what is required for, the efficient discharge of the duties of a particular post, it does not constitute a "qualification" for that post. (
2. b)Here it is admitted that both appointees possessed the educational qualifications required by the scheme of service. Therefore, no educational accomplishment realised by either of the Applicants and not realised by either of the appointees need have been treated by the Respondent Committee asimportant, letalonedecisive,evenifanyweight could properly be attached to it.

(3)Theremaining twopointsmadeonlyfor theApplicant in the second case, viz. seniority and "superior total service mark", it is clear from the relevant minute that they have been taken into account by the Respondent committee. Ontheother handtheCommittee wasentitled,indeed bound, to have regard to other matters as well, one of them being each candidate's personality viewed in its bearing on his aptitudefor thedutiesofinspector,astowhichtheCommittee was entitled to go by the opinion it formed as a result of its interview with him. Both recourses dismissed. No order as tocosts. Recourse. Recourse against thevalidity ofthedecision of Respondents 2, Committee of Educational Service, whereby they have appointed to the post of Inspector of Education, 1st Grade, the Interested Parties in preference and instead of the Applicants. 376 196 L. derides, for the Applicant in case 229/66. F. Markides and A. Paikkos, for the Applicant in case 235/66. » DR. PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER G. Tornaritis, for the Respondents. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OP Cur.adv.vult. The following Judgment was delivered by:STAVRINIDES, J.: By a notice published in the official Gazette of the Republic on April 28, 1966, under No. 469, applications were invited by the Committee of Educational Service (hereafter "the committee") for the filling of four vacancies in the post of Inspector of Education, 1st Grade (hereafter "inspector"), two of them relating to "literary subjects*' (φιλολογικά μαθήματα). Both Applicants applied in response to that noticeand were interviewed by thecommi­ ttee. The vacancies relating to the "literary subjects" were filled by the appointment of Dr. I. Koutsakos and Mr. C. Hadjistefanou (hereafter "the appointees"). Both appoint­ ments were made by one and the same decision (hereafter "the subject decision"). The Applicant in case No. 229 seeks to annul both appointments, while the other Applicant only questions the appointment of Mr. Hadjistefanou. On February 11, 1967, while both instant applications stoodfixedfor hearing onthe23rd of that month, eachappoin­ tee was served with a copy of the later one and a notice of the hearing stating that "he could appear on that day and apply for leave to take part in the proceedings as the court might think fit for the protection of his interests". Dr. Koutsakos neither appeared nor took any step in the pro­ ceedings. Mr. Hadjistefanou appeared at the hearing but took no part, leaving, as he expressly stated, the defence of his interests to Mr. Tornaritis, who appeared for the Re­ spondents in both applications. Due to longer delay in the filing and delivery of the oppo­ sition in the earlier application, the later one came on for hearing before the other. But after the later application had been partly heard it was agreed by all concerned that "the applications should be heard together", and thereafter this was done. 377 E °A™)-° 1968 July 13 fATTlCHlS AND ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY ot EDUCATION AND ANOTHER) The scheme of service is set out in paras. 2 and 3 of the notice referred to, which read: "2. Duties and responsibilities of the person to be appointed: (

1. a)Inspection of secondary schools and inspection and guidance of the teaching staff concerned with his special field (της είδικότητός του) in accordance with instructions or on the basis of the relevant curriculum; (
2. b)active participation in educational conferences and refresher courses (επιμορφωτικά μαθήματα) for the teaching staff of secondary schools generally and more particularly thatconcerned with his special field; (
3. c)any otherduties that might be entrusted to him. 3. Qualifications: A university diploma or degree or certificate or an equivalent school of higher education in the subject lying within his special field qualifying for classification as a secondary school teacher (here­ after simply "teacher"), 1st Grade, underthe relevant Law. Postgraduate training abroad in Education or in a subject connected with the duties of the post lasting at least one academic year or in the case of a holder of a diploma of a Teachers' Training College or Academy of Education lasting one academic semester. Successful educational service of at least ten years Familiarity with modern developments within his special field. Good knowledge of at least one of the main European languages. Note: In case none of the otherwise qualified candidates in any particular field has all the required years 378 of educational service a candidate having at least seven years of such service may be selected from amongst them." The material before me is derived from particulars filed by the Respondents (hereafter "the particulars"), taken in conjunction with statements made at the hearing and docu­ ments put in as exhibits; there has been no dispute as to any fact, and no oral evidence has been adduced. The following information regarding the Applicants and the appointees appears from the particulars" and copies of their applications to the committee (exhibits 13-16)taken together: 1. Dr. Pattichis Age 36. Post held at time of subject decision Teacher. Years of service 12. Academic qualifications Diploma, University of Athens, λίαν καλώ?; Μ.A. and Ph.D., Columbia University. 2. Mr. Kolitsis Age 35. Post held at time of subject decision Assistant Gymnasium Direct­ or. Years of service 13. Academic qualifications Diploma, University of Athens, καλώς; postgraduate education at Διδασκαλεϊον Μέσης 'Εκπαιδεύσεως"Αθηνών; Ph.D., University of Athens. 3. Dr. Koutsakos Age 31. Post held at time of subject decision "Καθηγητής", Cyprus Aca­ demy of Education. Years of service 15. 379 1968 July 13 DR. PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER) 1968 July 13 Academic qualifications DR. PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER) Diploma, University of Athens, λίαν καλώς; post­ graduate education, 1953-56 Universities of Vienna, Bonn and Cologne ; " doctorate, University of Athens". 4. Mr. Hadjistefanou Age 30. Post held at time of subject decision Assistant Gymnasium Direct­ or. Years of service 16. Academic qualifications Diploma, University of Athens, άριστα; postgraduate education, 1954-59, Univer­ sity of London; "and for 6 months (1963-1964) in Ame­ rica." In addition Mr. Kolitsis holds a Diploma in General Studies and one in Mental Health, both from the 'Εθνική 'Εταιρεία Κοινωνικής 'Αλληλεγγύης, Athens, obtained after a one-year course of study. The title of the latter diploma sufficiently explains the field of study which led to it; the former diploma was for studies in "spiritual, cultural and national topics viewed from the standpoint of modern socio­ logy and on the basis of the ideals of Greek-Christian civiliza­ tion" (exh. 1). A copy of Mr. Kolitsis's Diploma in Edu­ cation was put in (exh. 3), and particular stress was laid by his counsel on the fact that one of the subjects taught was "Administration and Supervision of Schools" andanother "Vocational Guidance". Also a copy of the thesis on the basis of which he was awarded the Ph.D. degree, entitled "On the Proper Names and Surnames of the Cypriote", was put in (exh. 5). Finally his counsel put in a "Confident­ ial Noteon Teacher" (exh. 6),being a report on Mr. Kolitsis's performance during the year 1965-66 showing a total mark of 24 1/2, which compares with the same total mark obtained during the same year by Dr. Koutsakos and a total mark of 24 obtained by Mr. Hadjistefanou. Moreover, it was said by counsel for Mr. Kolitsis, and was not disputed, that in 1958-59 he served as Director of Lefkara Gymnasium, 380 which does not appear in particulars. All four "diplomas" from the University of Athens were for studies in the Faculty of Philosophy. 'The minute of the subject decisions is as follows: *'Thecommittee havingtaksnt into account the qualifications of the candidates, the experience, the personality, the official reports on them, the general impression formed from the personal interview, the seniority, the year of compulsory retirement in force for inspectors, asalso theircreativeintellectual work and otheractivities, selects and appoints

(1)Mr. I. Koutsakos as from July 17, 1966,to the existing vacant post and

(2)Mr. Constantinos Hadjistefanou as from September, 1966, to the post which will become vacant on account of the termination of Mr. N. Xioutas's contract. These appointments will be permanent on probation for a period of two years, and the placement on'the appropriate scale is to be made on the basis of the regulations in force." The principles governing the judicial review of appointments, including promotions, in the public service, are illustrated by numerous decisions. But there is no need to refer to, still less to discuss, any of those decisions, because the principles which are relevant to the instant applications are not disputed. Briefly stated, they are as follows: It is the duty of the appointing authority to appoint the most suitable candidate. Accordingly seniority is relevant, but not the only, or indeed the main, consideration. The first duty of this court in reviewing promotions is to see whether the appointing authority exercised its discretionary power in conformity with statutory provisions and the rules and requirements of administrative law generally, including good faith. So long as the authority acted within those limits thecourt cannot interfere; it cannot substitute itsown opinion as to the merits of the candidates for that of the appointing authority. The case for Mr. Kolitsis is, in substance, that he is senior to Mr. Hadjistefanou, the former having been appointed Assistant Gymnasium Director in 1963 and the latter in 1964; that he has "superior educational qualifications" to those of both appointees; that he has a "total service 381 1968 July 13 D R . PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER) • 1$68 July 13 D R . PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER V. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER) mark" higher than that of Mr. Hadjistefanou and equal to that of Dr. Koutsakos; that in the particulars his years ofserviceweregivenastwelvewheninfact theywerethirteen, while both appointees were credited with all the years spent by them on postgraduate education, although by s. 13

(3)of theTeachers of Secondary Communal Schools Law,1963, an enactment of the former Greek Communal Chamber which is still in force, only two such years may be counted as years of service "for purposes of promotion". 1 may conveniently deal with the last point first. There is nothing in the minute of the subject decision, or otherwise before me, to show or suggest that in making either of the disputed appointments the committee was in any way influenced by any mistake relative to the years of service with which any of the candidates could properly be credited. Regarding specially the point based on s. 13

(3)of the 1963 Law,theprovisionaboutequivalenceofyearsofpostgraduate study with years of service contained in that subsection is, by its express terms, established "for the purposes of this paragraph", whichdealswithpromotion tothepost of"Assistant Director", and there is no warrant for applying it to any other appointment. I now come to the point about "superior educational qualifications". Bydefinition a "qualification" is"a quality, accomplishment, etc., which qualifies or fits a person for someoffice orfunction" (Shorter Oxford Dictionary). Every diploma or degree signifies an educational accomplishment. Butifthecourse of study asa result ofwhich itwasobtained is not relevant to, or goes beyond what is required for, the efficient discharge of the duties of a particular post, it does not constitute a "qualification" for that post. Here it is admitted that both appointees possessed the educational qualifications required by the scheme of service. Therefore no educational accomplishment realised by Mr. Kolitsis and not realised byeitheroftheappointees needhavebeentreated by the committee as important, let alone decisive, even if any weight could properly be attached to it. The remaining two points made for Mr. Kolitsis, viz. seniority and "superior total service mark" may be dealt in together. The minute of the subject decision includes among the matters taken into account seniority and "the 382 official reports" on the candidates (exhibits 6(a) and 7-9), in which their respective service marks appear; and it is not suggested that such inclusion is false. On the other hand the committee was entitled, indeed bound, to have regard to other matters as well,oneof them being each candidate's personality viewed in its bearing on his aptitude for the duties ofinspector, as to which thecommittee was entitled to go by the opinion it formed as a result of its interview with him. There is one other matter to be dealt with before I come to a conclusion on Mr. Kolitsis's application. The minute of the subject decision refers to "'the year of compulsory retirement for inspectors, as also (the) creative intellectual work and other activities" of the candidates. I must say I was struck by these words. But it has not been suggested on behalf of either Applicant that the committee was influenced either way by any such "other activities"; and as regards "the year of compulsory retirement" it was expressly agreedbythe partiesthat "it hasplayedno part inthe appointments in question". Viewing Mr. Kolitsis's application in the light of the foregoing I am unable to see that the committee in selecting either of the appointees acted in any way which warrants interference by this court. Accordingly he must fail. I now come to Dr. Pattichis's application. Counsel for him said that the committee in coming to the subject decision "did not have before it all the necessary material to enable it to carry out its paramount duty of selecting the best candidate" and alternatively that "even on the material before it, it was its duty to select" Dr. Pattichis. No attempt was made to substantiate the former proposition, while the latter can only be considered in relation to the two specific points made in support of it. As in Mr. Kolitsis's case, one was "superior educational qualifications", as to which what 1said in dealing with that case is equally applicable, so that nothing need be added. The other point was that Mr. Hadjistefanou having been in England for five years and in the United States for a semester, "if he obtained no degree or diploma in either country, thisisa matter which thecommittee should have taken against 383 1968 July 13 D R . PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER v. • REPUBLIC (MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND . ANOTHER) 1963 July 13 D R . PANAYIOTIS PATTICHIS AND ANOTHER v. REPUBLIC (MINISTRY O F EDUCATION AND ANOTHER) him". It is apparent from Mr. Hadjistefanou's application tothecommitteethathehadnotobtainedadegreeordiploma in either of those countries. But it is not fair to draw any inference unfavourable to him, certainly not one reflecting on hisfitnessfor the post of inspector, without giving him a chance of explaining the reason. Altogether Dr. Pattichis's case turnsonthesame principles as that of Mr. Kolitsis and therefore he, too, must fail. Both applications dismissed without costs. Ordersin terms. 384