← Κύπρος

clr/1981/1981_3_476.pdf

(1981)1981 December, 19 [HADJIANASTASSIOU, J.] IN THE MATTER O F ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION ΚΙΚΛ GAVA, Applicant, THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Case No. 280/78). Public Officers—Promotions—Head of Department—Director of the Department of Personnel—Not knowing all the candidates for post of Administrative Officer 1st Grade because they were scattered all over Cyprus—Proceedings before Commission adjournedfor a month to enable him make inquiriesfrom Heads 5 of Departments, under whom candidates were working, on their abilities—At resumed meeting of the Commission Director of Personnel Department not conveying to the Commission the views of Head of Departments on the candidates but making specific recommendation in favour of the interested parties— 10 Public Service Commission relying on such recommendation— In the circumstances of this case respondent Commission ought not to havegiven to such recommendation the weight it did give— Sub judice promotion annulled. Public Officers—Promotions—Confidential reports—Applicant with better confidential reports than interested parties—Reasons given by respondent Commission for selecting interested parties contrary to the administrative records viz. the confidential reports —Sub~judice decision annulled for lack of due reasoning. 15 Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Reasoning— 20 Due reasoning—Need for—Public Officers—Promotions—Reaso­ ning given by Public Service Commission for selecting the intere­ sted party contrary to the contents of the relevant administrative 476 3 C.L.R. Cava v. Republic records viz. the confidential reports—Promotions annulled for lack of due reasoning. 5 10 15 20 25 30 The applicant was a candidate for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, 1st Grade, in the General Administrative Staff, a promotion post. When the Public Service Commission met to consider the filling of the vacancies in this post the Director of the Department of Personnel, who is the Head of Department of the General Administrative Staff, stated that he did not know all the candidates as they were scattered all over Cyprus and suggested that all candidates be interviewed by the Commission before making its final selection. Thereupon the Commission decided to adjourn thefillingof the vacancies for a month in order to give a chance to the Director of the Department of Personnel to make, in the meantime, the necessary inquiries and obtain the views of the Heads of Departments under whom the candidates were working, regarding the merits and abilities of the candidates. The Commission met again in the presence of the Director of the Department of Personnel who stated before the Commission that having regard to the merits and abilities of all the candidates, he considered Messrs. Leandros Isaias and Diomedes Avraam as the best and recommended them for promotion; and the Commission "after taking into consideration all the facts appertaining to each one of the candidates and after giving proper weight to the merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of these candidates, and having regard to the views expressed as well as to the recommendations made by the Director of the Department of Personnel", came to the conclusion that the above two officers were on the whole the best and decided to promote them to the above post. Neither of the interested parties have obtained even one blue report (special confidential report) in contrast with the applicant, who from 1966-1977 had to her credit 10such reports. 35 40 Applicant challenged the above decision by means of this recourse and mainly contended that the respondent Commission erroneously attributed undue weight to the views of the Department of Personnel who was not the immediate and actual superior of all the candidates and had no personal knowledge of their merits. Held, that since the Director of the Personnel Department admitted that he did not know all the candidates, and once 477 Gava v. Republic
(1981)the filling of the vacancies was adjourned for a month in order to give the chance to the Director of the Personnel Department to make, in the meantime, the necessary inquiries and obtain the views from the Heads of Departments regarding the merits and the abilities of all the candidates, the Director ought to 5 convey to the Commission the views of the Heads of Departments on all the candidates and leave the matter in the hands of the Commission to draw its own conclusions and not to make specific recommendations, as he did, about the two interested parties only; that in the particular circumstances of 10 this case, the Commission ought not to have given to the recommendation of the Director of the Personnel the weight it did give and indeed the Commission made it clear that they relied entirely on the recommendation of the Director of the Personnel Department; accordingly thesubjudice decision must beannulled 15 (see Georghiou v. Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74 at pp. 84, 85). Held, further, that since applicant had better confidential reports than the interested parties the reasons given by the respondent Commission in its minutes for selecting the interested parties appear to be definitely contrary to the relevant admi- 20 nistrative records viz, the annual confidential reports; accordingly the sub judice decision must be annulled for lack of due reasoning. (Savva v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 675 at pp. 695, 696 followed). Sub judice decision annulled. 25 Cases referred to: Georghiou v. The Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74 at pp. 84, 85; Savva v. The Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 675, at pp. 695, 696; Joannou v. Republic
(1977)3 C.L.R. 61 at p. 74; Lardis v. Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 64; 30 Iacovides v. Republic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 212; Petrondas v. Attorney-General
(1969)3 C.L.R.
  1. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to promote the interested parties to the post of Administrative Officer 35 1st Grade in preference and instead of the applicant. St. Erotocritou {Mrs.), for the applicant. CI. Antoniades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 40 478 3 C.L.R. Gava v. Republic HADJIANASTASSIOU J. read the following judgment: THE FACTS: The applicant is a spinster and was born on 27th June, 1938 and shejoined the public service on 1st July,
  2. Sheserved 5 with the Education Office of the then British Colony of Cyprus as a temporary clerical assistant from 1st July, 1956, and as a permanent clerical assistant from 1st May,
  3. After Cyprus becameindependent,shewasattached intheserviceoftheGreek Communal Chamber and was appointed a stenographer, 2nd 10 gradeon 1stJanuary, 1966,aswellasbeingarecorderofminutes -clerk,on 1stMay,
  4. After theGreekCommunal Chamber had ceased to function in 1965, she was eventually emplaced in the post of Administrative Officer, 3rd grade, as from 1st February, 1966, by virtue of the provisions of section 16
(1)15 of the Transfer of Exercise of the Competences of the Greek Communal Chamber and the Ministry of Education Law, 1965 (Law 12/65). On 1.12.1970 she was ieconded to the post ofAdministrative Officer 2nd Gradeand shewaspromoted to that post as from 15th July, 1971. The applicant was not 20 emplacedinthepostofadministrative officer thirdgradestraight away, under s. 16
(1)of Law 12/65 and at about the same time when other officers in the service of the Greek Communal Chamber were emplaced in other posts in the Public Service under the said section 16
(1). She was initially erroneously 25 emplaced in the post of Stenographer 1st Grade, and it was only after she had made successfully a recourse under Article 146of the Constitution against such emplacement that she was emplaced in the post of Administrative Officer, third Grade as from 1st February, 1966, having been eventually informed 30 of this decision by a letter dated 8th October, 1968. In view of the above delay inrelationtotheemplacementof theapplicantinthepostofAdministrativeOfficer 3rdGrade,and her claims for promotion tothepostofAdministrative Officer, 2nd Grade, were adversely affected in that other public officers 35 who were appointed or promoted to the post of Administrative Officer 3rd Grade after the time at which she would have been normally emplaced in such post, became or were treated as her seniors instead of as herjuniors, in the post of Administrative Officer 3rd Grade, and were consequently promoted ahead 40 of her to the post of Administrative Officer 2nd Grade, thus 479 Hadjianastassiou J. Gava v. Republic
(1981)gaining seniority over the applicant in that post; and some of them have already been promoted t o Administrative Officer, 1st Grade. The applicant, feeling aggrieved, raised with the Commission the prejudicial effect on her career, and pointed out that in rela5 tion t o other public officers who had been in the service of the Gieek Communal Chamber and w h o w e i e emplaced in ana­ logous posts under s. 16 of Law 12/65, their years of Service under the Greek Communal Chamber were taken into considera­ tion for purposes of seniority and promotion. Indeed, she 10 was also informed on 26th July, 1977, that her seniority in the post of Administrative Officer, 3rd Grade, would be calculated as from 1st May,
  1. (See letters dated 22nd January, 1973, 16th February, 1976, 14th January, 1977 and 26th July, 1977, (exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5). 15 On the 20th August, 1977, the applicant addressed a letter t o the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, and had this, inter alia, to say:"Καίτοι ή άρχαιότης των δημοσίων υπαλλήλων, ή οποία καθορίζεται βάσει των προνοιών τοϋ άρθρου 46 τοΰ περί 20 της Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας Νόμου 33 τοϋ 1967, δέν είναι το μοναδικόν ή το άττοφασιστικόν κριτήριον διά προαγωγήν, έν τούτοις αύτη αποτελεί ενα των ουσιωδών παραγόντων. ΕΤναι προφανές ότι εις την ίδικήν μου περίπτωσιν, έσν ή κοινοποιηθείσα είς έμέ εΐρημίνη άπόφασις είχε ληφθή ενωρί- 25 τερον, όπως έγένετό είς τάς περιπτώσεις άλλων υπαλλήλων της τέως ΕΚΣΚ, ή σειρά αρχαιότητος μου είς την θέσιν Διοι­ κητικού Λειτουργού, 3ης Τάξεως θά ήτο πολύ διάφορος α π ό ότι μέχρι τώρα, ή δε π ρ ο α γ ω γ ή μου είς την 2αν ΤάΕιν θά εΐχεν έπιταχυνθη αναλόγως και δέν θά καθυστερεί μέχρι 30 της 15.7.
  2. Ή τοιαύτη κσθυοτέρησις επηρέασε και ΙΕακολουθεΐ νά έπηρεάζη την σειράν αρχαιότητος μου είς την 2αν Τάϋιν τού Διοικητικού Λειτουργού. Είς τον συνημμένοι? πίνακα παρατίθενται ενδεικτικώς περι­ πτώσεις συναδέλφων μου οι οποίοι εϊχον ή θά εΤχον χαμη- 35 λοτέραν εμού σειράν αρχαιότητος έπϊ τη βάσει της νέας ημε­ ρομηνίας 1.5.1962, ήτ*ς Ισχύει τώρα είς τήν περίπτωσιν μου, και οι όποιοι προήχθησαν είς τήν 2αν Τά£ιν τού Διοικ. Λειτουργού ένωρίτερον εμού, τινές 6έ kl αυτών έχουν ήδη τύχει περαιτέρω προαγωγής είς τήν Ιην ΤάΕιν. 40 480 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Gava v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. Έκ τών ανωτέρω καθίσταται πρόδηλον δτι,συμπτωματικώς άλλα και ουχί έ£ ύπαιτιότητός μου έπηρεάσθηλίαν δυσμενώς ή υπηρεσιακή μουέΕέλιΕις, ελπίζω δέ ότι ή υμετέρα 'Επιτροπή Θά Θελήση να δώση τήν δέουσαν λύσινείς τάς ά£ιώσεις μου διά προαγωγήν όταν θά έπιληφθηπροσεχώς τοΰ Θέματοςπροαγωγών είς τήν θέσιν Διοικητικού Λειτουρ­ γού, 1ης Τά£εως, καθ' ότι, άλλως, θά εξακολουθήσω να υφίσταμαι τα συνεπείας άνίσουμεταχειρίσεως". ("Although the seniority of public officers, which is defined by the provisions of section 46 of the Public Service Law No. 33 of 1967, is not the only or decisive criterion for promotion, yet it constitutes one of the substantive factors. It is obvious thatinmy case,if your decision communicated to me had been received earlier as was done in the case of other officers of the ex Greek Communal Chamber, my seniority in the post of Administrative Officer 3rd Grade would be very different from what it is until now, and my promotion to the 2nd Grade would have been accelerated accordingly and would not have been delayed until the 15.7.
  3. This delay has affected andcontinues to affect my seniority inthe2nd Gradeof the Administrative Officer. In the attached schedule are shown indicatively cases of colleagues of mine who had or would have had a lower seniority on the basis of the new date 1.5.1962, which is now in force in my case, and who were promoted to the 2nd Grade of Administrative Officer before me, some of whom have already been further promoted to the 1st Grade. From the above it is evident that, symptomatically and not due to my responsibility my advancementin the service was very adversely affected, and IhopethatyourCommittee will want to give the proper solution to my claims for promotion when it will consider presently the question of promotions in the post of Administrative Officer, 1st Grade, because otherwise I shall continue to suffer the effects of unequaltreatment"). Thereisnodoubt thattheapplicantquite rightly was inquiring to find out how the Commission was proposing to apply the 481 Hadjianastassiou J. Gava v. Republic
(1981)decision communicated to her regarding her revised date of seniority as administrative officer, 3rd grade in relation to her claim for promotion in future to Administrative Officer, 1st Grade so as to put an end to her continuous victimization or unequal treatment. 5 In reply to the letter of the applicant, the Chairman of the Commission informed her that both her seniority as well as her demands in general for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, 1st class,would betaken duly into consideration if and when the Commission would deal with thefillingof 10 that post. Furthermore, the writer pointed out that in accordance with the provisions of s. 44(
  1. a)of the Public Service Law, No.33/67, theseniorityofanemployeedoesnotconstitutetheonlycriterion for promotion. Onthecontrary,counselappearingfortherespondentopposed the application on the following grounds of law, viz., that the decision complained of was properly and lawfully taken in the proper exercise of the respondent's discretion and after careful consideration ofalltherelevantfactsandcircumstances. Indeed, 20 the facts relied upon in the opposition were that the Director of the Ministry of Financewrote to the Chairman of the Commission informing him that the Minister of Finance had approved, interalia,thefillingof two vacancies in the post of administrative officer, 1st grade, in the General Administrative 25 Staff, as well as any consequential ones and requested him to take the necessary steps for their filling. (See encl. No. 1). According to the relevant scheme of service (encl. No. 2), the post of Administrative Officer, 1st Grade, in the General Administrative Staff isa "Promotion Post". The Public Service 30 Commissionatitsmeetingof16.11.1977(encl.No.3),decidedthat the filling of the abovementioned vacancies be considered on 16.12.1977 and that the Director, Department of Personnel, should be requested to be present. At its meeting of 16.12.1977 (encl. No. 4)and inthe presence 35 of the Director, Department of Personnel, the Commission, having carefully considered (
  2. a)the merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of all the officers (including 482 15 3 C.L.R. Gava τ. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. Applicant) seiving in the lower post of Administrative Officer, 2nd Grade,as reflected intheirpersonalfilesandin theirannual confidential reports; and (
  3. b)the views expressed on each one of thecandidates bythe Directorof theDepartmentofPersonnel 5 and the recommendationsmade by him, decided that theinter­ ested parties were on the whole the best and that they should be promoted to the permanent post of Administrative Officer, 1st Grade with effect from 15.2.1978. The promotion of the interested parties to the abovementioned post was published 10 inthe Official Gazetteof the Republic of 7.4.1978under Notifi­ cation No. 623. On the 16th November, 1979, according to the minutes of the meeting, the Director of the Department of Personnel staled orally that he did not know all the candidates as they 15 were scattered all over Cyprus. In view of this statement, the Director suggested that all candidates might be interviewed by the Commission before final selection was made. The Commission, after considering the above suggestion, decided that it would not be necessary to interview the candi20 dates for the post of administrative officer first grade andadmi­ nistrative officer second grade. Indeed,the Commission further decided that thefilling of the vacancies in the above post be considered after about one month in order to give a chance to the Director of the Department of Personnel to make, in 25 the meantime, the necessary inquiries and obtain the views from the heads of departmentsregarding the merits and abilities of the candidates. With that in mind,the Commission decided (i)that thefillingof thevacancies in the post of Administrative Officer 1st Grade and 2nd grade be considered on 16th 30 December, 1977, at 9.30 a.m. in the presence of the Director of the Department of Personnel. On the 16th December, 1977, in the piesence of theDirector of the Department of Personnel, Mr. G.M. Anastassiades, Mr. C.Lapas withdrew fiom themeeting because hewas related 35 to one of the candidates. Ii appears further that under the relevant scheme of service, the following requirements, inter alia, are needed:(
  4. i)a minimum of five years' administrative experience, 483 Hadjianastassiou J. Gava v. Republic
(1981)two of which should be in the post of Administrative Officer, 2nd Grade; (
  1. ii)an excellent knowledge of Greek and a very good knowledge of English; (iii) the officers must have passed the exams in Cyprus 5 Statute Laws,orcertain specified laws,GeneralOrders, Financial Instructions and Stores Regulations; and (
  2. iv)possession of a University Diploma or Degree will be considered as an advantage. Then, encl. No. 4 shows thaitheCommissionconsideredthe 10 merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of all the officers serving in the lower post of Administrative Officer, 2nd Grade,asreflected intheirpersonalfilesand intheirannual confidential reports. The Director of the Department of Personnel slated that having regard to the merits and abilities 15 of all the candidates, he considered Messrs. Leandros Isaias and Diomedes Avraam as the best and recommended them for promotion. Finally, the Director of the Department of Personnel added (
  3. i)L. Isaias; (
  4. ii)D. Avraam. Then, the Commission, having dealt with the case of Mr. 20 L. Isaias, observed that he entered the Government Service on 1st May, 1944,as an inspector of Cereals and, after working for a number of years in the Clerical staff, joined the Administrative Staff as from 1.3.1957as a temporary Administrative Officer, 3rd Grade (on secondment); on 2.7.1962 he was 25 appointed substantively tothe permanent post of Administrative Officer, 3rd Grade, and as from 1.12.1967 he was promoted to the permanent post of Administrative Officer, 2nd Grade. InhisAnnualConfidential Reports,Mr. Isaiashasbeenassessed generally as "very good" and "excellent". 30 With regard to Mr. D. Avraam, the Commission observed that this officer entered the Government Service on 1.4.1955 as a temporary Clerical Assistant and as from 1.1.1957he was promoted to the post of Clerk, 2nd Grade; after working for a number of yearsinthatcapacity, hejoined theAdministrative 35 Staff as a temporary Administrative Officer, 3rd Grade (on secondment), and as from 1.5.1966he was appointed substantivelytothepermanent postofAdministrative Officer, 3rdGrade; 484 3 C.L.R. Gava v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. as from 1.10.1968 he was seconded to the temporary (Dev.) post of Administrative Officer, 2nd Grade, and as from 1.2.69 he was promoted to the permanent post of Administrative Officer, 2nd Grade. In his Annual Confidential Reports 5 for the years 1968-1973, Mr. Avraam was assessed as "very good" and "excellent", whereas in the Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1974-1976 he was assessed as "excellent" andinthelast tworeports hewasrecommended for promotion. Finally, the Commission, after comparing the qualifications, 10 seniority, service and experience as well as the assessments made in the Annual Confidential Reports of all the candidates, decided to follow the recommendations made by the Director of the Department of Personnel. According to the relevant scheme of service, candidates for 15 promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, 1st Grade, must possess"an excellent knowledgeof Greek and averygood knowledge of English". Having regard to the long and satisfactory service in the Government of Messrs. L. Isaias and D. Avraam, as well as their educational qualifications, the 20 Commissionwassatisfied thattheofficers inquestiondidpossess "an excellent knowledge of Greek and a very good knowledge of English". After consideringalltheaboveandafter takingintoconsideration all the facts appertaining to each one of the candidates 25 and after giving proper weight to the merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of these candidates,and having regardtotheviewsexpressed aswellastothe recommendations made by the Director of the Department of Personnel, the Commission came to the conclusion that the following officers 30 were on the whole the best. The Commission accordingly decided that the officers in question be promoted to the permanent post of Administrative Officer, 1st Grade, w.e.f. 15.2.1978: Leandros Isaias; Diomedes Avraam. QUALIFICATIONS: 35 According to a table showing particulars of the Government Service and the qualifications of the applicant and the two interested parties, the applicant joined the service as a Clerical Assistant (unestablished) on 1.7.1956 and became permanent on 1.5.1957. On 1st May, 1962,shebecame a Secretary-Clerk, 485 Hadjianastassiou J. Gava v. Republic
(1981)Greek Communal Chamber, and on 1.2.1966, after being emplaced in the post of Stenographer, 1st Grade G.C.S. under s. 16
(1)of Law 12/65, it was cancelled by the Supreme Court and on the same date she was emplaced to the post of Administrative Officer, 3rd Grade G.A.S. under s. 16
(1)of Law 12/65 5 (seniority is reckoned as from 1.5.1962). On 1.12.1970 she was seconded to the T(D) post of Administiative Officer, 2nd Grade, G.A.S.; and on 15.7.1971 she became an Administrative Officer, 2nd Grade, G.A.S. The qualifications of the applicant are these:(
  1. i)Greek Gymnasium, Morphou 10 1950-1956 (
  2. ii)C.C.E.: English Lower and Higher Greek Higher History Turkish Lower Maths "A" and " B " Geography 15 (iii) General Orders 1970 (
  3. iv)Financial Instructions 1970 (
  4. v)Specified Laws 1972 20 The Interested Party Diomedes Avraam joined the Public Service on 1.4.1955 as a Temporary Clerical Assistant. On 1.1.1957 he became a Clerk, 2nd Grade, G.C.S. On 1.9.1965 he was promoted to Assistant District Inspector (sec.) District 25 Administration, and became permanent in this post on 1.5.1966. On 1.10.68 he was seconded to temp. (Dev.) Administrative Officer, 2nd Gr., G.A.S.; on 1.2.1969 he became Admin. Officer, 2nd Gr., G.A.S. (Perm.); and on 15.2.1978 he became Adm. Officer, 1st Gr., G.A.S. 30 His qualifications are the following :(
  5. i)English School, Nicosia 1949-1955 (
  6. ii)C.C.E.: English Lower and Higher Greek Lower and Higher Turkish Lower and Higher Maths "A" and " B " 486 35 3 C.L.R. Gava v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. History Geography 5 (iii) General Orders 1958 (
  7. iv)Financial Instructions 1962 (
  8. v)Specified Laws 1966 (
  9. vi)Attended a course for Establishment Officers in London 14.4.726.7.72 (vii)Public Administration Course, Univ. of Manchester 1976-1977 Interested Party Leandros Isaias joined the Public Service as Inspector of Cereals on 1.5.1944. On 1.1.1945 he became a Temporary Clerical Assistant, and was made permanent inthatposton 1.1.1956. On 1.371957 hewassecondedtotemp. 15 Asst. District Inspector, and on 2.7.1962 he became Asst. District Inspector, District Admin. (Perm.). On 1.12.1967 he was promoted to Adm. Officer, 2nd Gr. G.A.S., and he became 1st grade in that post on 15.2.1978. 10 His qualifications are the following:20 (
  10. i)Greek High School, Morphou 1932-1934 (
  11. ii)Pancyprian Gymnasium and English School, Nicosia 1934-1937 (iii) English Ordinary (
  12. iv)English Higher, C.C.E. 25 (
  13. v)General Orders 1967 (
  14. vi)Financial Instructions 1967 (vii)Specified Laws 1966 Turning now to the confidential reports of the applicant, it appears that the Public Service Commission, once it decided 30 toacceptandadopttherecommendationmadeby Mr.Anastassiades, the Director of the Personnel Department, it did not proceed to make any mention of the confidential reports of the applicant, which, from 1966-1967 were all Special Confidential Reports (blue reports), and the reporting officer was 35 Mr. Adamides. 487 Hadjianastassiou J. Gava v. Republic
(1981)From April, 1966-May, 1967, a special assessment of the applicant reads:- "An outstanding officer whomaywell prove herself extiemely efficient in the performance of duties of even more responsibility, especially in the administrativefield". From May, 1967-December, 1967, she was assessed as "An 5 outstanding officer"; and for the period December, 1976December, 1977,this observation was made: "Leading personality and undertakes initiative on any matter assigned to her". In view of the above assessment she was recommended for acceleiated promotion. 10 It may be noted that neither of the interested parties have obtained even one blue report, in contrast with the applicant, who from 1966-1977 had to her credit 10blue reports. GROUNDS OF LAW: Counsel in support of hisgrounds of law argued
(1)that the 15 decision to promote the interested parties is not duly reasoned and/or its reasoning is contrary to the Constitution, the law andtheprinciplesofproperadministration;
(2)thattherespondent Commission acted in excess and abuse of powers and/or exercised erroneously its discretion and that (
  1. a)it overlooked 20 the striking superiority of the applicant as a whole over the interested parties; (
  2. b)that the Commission attributed to the seniority of the interested parties over the applicant (22months in the case of interested party Avraam and 3yearsinthecase of interested party Isaias) undueweightwhichwasnotjustifiable 25 in theparticular circumstances ofthepresent case;
(3)theCommission acted under a material misconception of fact in that itregardedthemoreapparentthanreal,intheparticularcircumstances of the present case, seniority of the interested parties over the applicant as indicative of administrative experience 30 whereas the applicant had by far greater administrative experience, asfrom 1.5.1962,ascompared to that ofinterested party Avraam (as from 1.5.1966).
(4)The respondent Commission contravened the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 28 of the Constitution in 35 that it did not afford to the applicant the opportunity to be promoted toAdministrative Officer 1stGrade on the samebasis asthosewhowereemplacedinthepostofAdministrative Officer 3rd Grade as from 1.5.1962,this being the date, as from when 488 3 C.L.R. Gava v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. the applicant would have been regarded as so emplaced to such post under section 16
(1)of Law 12/65 not being inordinately delayed through no fault of her own.
(5)Moreover, the applicant is the victim of unequal treatment 5 in thatin the manner inwhich her eventual and belated emplacement at the post of Administrative Officer 3rd Grade was made deprived her of the recognition, for purposes of seniority and promotion, of her years of service in the analogous post under the Greek Communal Chamber, such recognition having been 10 invariably accorded to all other officers of the Greek Communal Chamber who were emplaced in the posts in the Public Service under section 16 of Law 12/65.
(6)The respondent Commission erroneously attributed undue weight to the views of the Department of Personnel who 15 was not the immediate and actual superior of all the candidates and had no personal knowledge of their merits. Having considered carefully what was said by counsel for the applicant and for the respondent, it is necessary to add that since the Director of the Personnel Department admitted 20 that he did not know all the candidates, and once the filling of the vacancies was adjourned for a monthinordertogivethe chance to the Director of the Personnel Department to make, in the meantime, the necessary inquiries and obtain the views from the Heads of Departments regarding the merits and the 25 abilities of all the candidates, the Director ought to convey to the Commission the views of the Heads of Departments on all the candidates and leave the matter in the hands of the Commission to draw its own conclusions; and not to make specific recommendations, as he did about the two interested 30 parties only. With that in mind, and in the particular circumstances of this case, the Commission ought not to have given to the recommendation of the Director of the Personnel the weight it did give and indeed the Commission made it clear that they relied entirely on the recommendation of the Director 35 of the Personnel Department. If authority is needed on this point, Ithink that thecaseof OdysseasGeorghiouv. The Republic of CyprusthroughthePublicServiceCommission,
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74 at pp. 84, 85 provides the answer. Triantafyllides, P., had this to say:40 "There exists, in our opinion, yet another reason for annul489 Hadjianastassiou J. Gava v. Republic
(1981)ling the subjudice decision of the Commission: As it appears from the already quoted extract from its minutes the Commission observed that the Head of Department of the condidates, namely the Director of the Department of Personnel, was not in a position to make any specific 5 recommendations as the candidates were scattered all over Cyprus. It seems that the Director of Peisonnel feltthat,inthecircumstances,hecouldnotknow sufficiently well the quality of the work of all candidates,astheywere not allof them workingdirectlyunder hissupervision. The 10 Commission, however, recorded, as one of the reasons for selecting the interested party instead of the appellant, the fact that 'after discussion' with the Director of Personnel it reached the conclusion, and the Director 'agreed', that, on the whole, the interested party was the 15 best. We think that the Commission could not have properly given the weightthatitappearsthatitdidgivetotheopinion of the Director of Personnel, since, as already stated, he was not in a position to make specific recommendations; 20 and in this respect, it must not be lost sight of that this was, certainly, not an occasion when the Commission had interviewed the eligible candidates in the presence of the Head of Department and it might be said that he expressed an opinion on the basis of his assessment of 25 the candidates in the light of their performance at the interviews". Turning now to the question of lack of due reasoning, I thinkonecanreceivesufficient guidancefrom thecaseofAndreas Savva v. The Republicof Cyprus,throughthe Public Service 30 Commission,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 675 at pp. 695, 696 where I had this to say: "Turning now to the second question as to whether the Commission erred in not giving reasons for preferring the interested party, going through the relevant admini- 35 strative records, I find that on the whole the applicant has more qualifications, better confidential reports, and more overall experience in the Government service, and, therefore, I would have expected, and I agreewith counsel for the applicant that the Commission should have given 40 490 \ \ 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Gava v. Republic Hadjianastassiou J. full reasons for preferring theinterested party. Thewhole object of the rule requiring reasons to be given by the Commission in administrative decisions is to enable the person concerned, as well as this Court on review to ascertain in each case whether the decision iswell founded in fact and in law. InElliChr. KoraiandAnotherv. The CyprusBroadcasting Corporation,
(1973)3 C.L.R. 546, dealing with this very same point, viz., the lack of due reasoning, I had this to say at pp. 555, 556: With these principles in mind, I would like to state that the reasons given by the respondent commission in its minutes for selecting the interested party, appear to be definitely contrary to the relevant administrative records and incompatible with the factors taken into account by them, viz., the qualifications of the candidates concerned and the annual confidential reports. This is another reason whythesubjudice promotion oftheinterested party should be annulled". 20 Seealsoloannouv.Republic,
(1977)3C.L.R. 61atp.74, Lardis v. Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 64; lacovides v. Republic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 212; Petrondas v. Attorney-General,
(1969)3 C.L.R. 214. For the reasons I have given, I have reached the conclusion 25 that thepromotion of the interested partiesshould be annulled. Recorse succeeds. No order as to costs. Subjudicedecision annulled. No order as tocosts. 491

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.