3 C.L.R. 1982 August 21 [A. Loizou, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION CHRISTOFOROS MICHAEL AND ANOTHER, Applicants, v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Case Nos. 239/81 am/ 240/81). Public Officers—Appointments andpromotions—Departmental Boards established under section 36 of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/6Ί)—They cannot take away the competence of the Commission as provided by section 5 of the above Law. 5 Administrative Law—Administrative acts and decisions—Reasoning —May be supplemented by material in the file. Public Officers—Appointments and promotions—Qualifications— Schemes of Service—Fact that on a previous occasion certain candidates were found as possessing the required qualifications, under the relevant schenies of service, does notpreclude the Public 10 Service Commission from examining whether these candidates, along with all other candidates, had on the occasion under con sideration the required qualifications. Public Officers—Schemes of Service—Interpretation by Public Service Commission—Judicial control—Principles applicable—"University title or equivalent diploma in Social Work, Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subject" in the scheme of service for the post of Principal Welfare Officer in the Department of Welfare Services—Interpretation. The applicants were candidates for the post of Principal Welfaie Office!, in the Department of Welfare Services. The Depattmental Board, established under section 36 of the Public 726 20 15 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Michael and Another v. P.S.C. Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67), after considering the matter recommended to the respondent Public Service Commission four candidates, including the two applicants, as suitable for selection for the above post. The Public Service Commission after obtaining the views of the Ministry of Education and the views of thv Universitiei from which the applicants obtained their qualifications came to the conclusion that the "Diploma in Social Welfare" oi "Diploma in Social Policy and Administration" fiom the University College of Swansea, possessed by both applicants, the "Post Graduate Diploma in Urban Social Development of the Institute of Social Studies of the Hague" possessed by applicant Michael and the "Diploma in Business Management of La Salle Extension University of Chicago", possessed by the second applicant, could not beconsidered as a "University title or equivalent diploma in Social Work, Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subject" required by the relevant scheme of service. Thereupon the Commission decided that applicants were not qualified under the scheme of service and promoted the interested party to the post in question. Hence these recourses. Counsel for applicantsmainly contended: (a) That the sub judice decision was not duly reasoned. 25 30 35 (b) That once the applicants were placed on the list of candidates by the Departmental Board, in exercise of the Board's powers undei theRegulations governing the establishment and functioning of the Board, the respondent Commission could not itself inquire further into the question whether the candidates so placed on the list possessed the required qualifications or not. (c) That once applicants on another occasion were considcied by the lespondent Commission as possessing the required qualifications under the relevant scheme of service for the above post, the respondent Commission could not inquire into the question of their qualifications afresh. (d) That when the scheme of service speaks of a "University title" it does not mean a title in "Social Work, Sociology,SocialPsychology or other suitable subject", 727 Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)which categories should be read in conjunction with the term "equivalent diploma" that precedes them in the relevant part of the scheme of service, but any Univeisity titlewhatsoever and applicant Fiangoulides should have been considered eligible because he possesses a Diploma in Business Management of La Salle Extension University of Chicago, by correspondence, which isof a threeyear cycle of studies, though not falling within the categories enumerated in the scheme of service. 5 10 (e) That the qualifications of the two candidates did not justify the conclusion of the respondent Commission that they were not eligible. Held,
(1)that, no doubt, an examination of the text of the decision as such and a perusal of the record shows that the '-* subject decision is duly and cogently reasoned viewed both by itself and as supplemented by all the material in the file; that, moreover, it was taken after a painstaking and thoiough inquiry which showed how mindful of its responsibilities and anxious to arrive at the right decision on the matter the respondent Commission has been; accordingly contention (a) should faiL
(2)That whatever the provisions of the new Regulations concerning the Departmental Boards are, they could not take away thecompetence of.therespondent Commission asprovided by section 5* of Law 33/67 and they have to be inteipreted in ^5 such a way as to be intra vires and not ultra vires of the empowering law; that theycannot but beconsidered as legulattng the functions of the Departmental Boards and as setting out theprocedurt tobefollowed bythem foi thepurpose ofassisting the Public Service Commission to exercise its competence under ^0 the law, which in the case of promotions is regulated further by section 44 of the Law, whereby under paia. (
- b)of subsection 1thereof, oneof the mattersto beexamined bytheCommission Section 5 provides as follows: "Save where other express provision is made in this or any other law with respect to any matter set out in this section and subject to the provisions of this or any other law in force for the time being, it shall be the duty of the Commission to appoint, confirm, emplace on the permanent establishment, promote, transfer, second, retire and exercise disciplinary control over, including dismissal or removal from office of, public officers". 728 20 3 C.L.R. Michael and Another v. P.S.C. iswhether a candidatefor promotion to another office posses es the qualifications laid down in the scheme of service for that office; accordingly contention (
- b)should fail 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(3)That the fact that on other occasions the applicants were found by the Commission to possess the qualifications required by the relevant scheme of service did not in Law preclude the Commission which had a duty to examine whether the applicants, along with all other candidates, had, on the occasion under consideration, the required qualifications under the relevant scheme of service for the post in question, that, moreso, in view of the fact that different personswereinvolved on this occasion, as compared with the candidates that it had before it on the other occasions; accordingly contention (c) should fail
(4)That the relevant provision of tht scheme of service has to be read as a whole and not read as meaning University title of any kind and unrelated to Social Woik, Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subject, which, it has been urged, only relate to the alteinative to the "University title", namely the "equivalent diploma", that itwould be unreasonable to consider that there was no restriction to the "University title" relevant to the nature ot the duties of the office and yet there were such restrictions in the case when the alternative of an "equivalent diploma" is possessed, accordingly contention (d)should fail
(5)That this Couit will not give to a scheme of seivice an interpretation other than that given to it by the Commission, piovided that such interpretation was reasonably open to the Commission; that likewise, in deteimintng whether a certain applicant in fact possesses the relevant qualifications the Commission is given a discretion, and this Court can only examine whether the Commission, on the material before it, could leasonably have come to a paiticular conclusion, that in the present case it was reasonably open to the respondent Commission to mteipiet and apply the lelevant scheme of service as it has done, that the fact that in its reasoning it iefers to the question of the time length necessary for obtaining the qualifications possessed by the applicants, does not change the position as thelength required for a particulai courseisa factor to be taken into consideration along with other factois when 729 Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)considering whether a diploma is equivalent to the lequired University title; accoidingly contention (e) should, also, fail. Application dismissed. Cases referred to: Ktoridesv. Republic
(1973)3 CX.R- 171 at p. 174; Papapetrouv. The Republic,2 R.S.C.C. 61; Petsas v. Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 60 at p. 63. 5 Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondent whereby the interested party was promoted to the post of Principal 10 Welfare Officer in the Department of Welfare Services in preference and instead of the applicants. D. Papachrysostomou, for the applicants. A. Papasavvas,Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 15 A. Loizou J. read the following judgment. By these two recourses which by direction of the Court made with the consent of the parties have been heard together, the applicants seek a declaration (
- a)that the decision of the lespondent Commission communicated to them by identical letters dated the 8th May, 20 1981 (exhibit 1), is null and void and of no effect whatsoever, and (
- b)that the decision of the respondent Commission by which Argyris Roussos, hereinafter referred to as the interested party, was promoted as from 15.5.1981 to the post of Principal Welfare Officer in the Department of Welfare Services as from 25 15.5.1981 is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The vacancy of the said post was published in the official Gazette of the Republic on the 25th May, 1979, and in response thereto seven applications, including thoseofthetwo applicants, were submitted, which, in accordance with regulation 3 of the 30 Regulations governing the Establishment of Departmental Boards in accordance with section 36 of the Public Service Law 1967, were forwarded by the Sccrctaiy of the respondent Commission together with the personal files and confidential reports of the applicants, who were already civil servants, the schemes 35 of soivice and other relevant documents, to the DirectorGeneral of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance in his capacity as Chairman of the Departmental Board. 730 3 C.L.R. Michael and Another v. P.S.C. A. Loizou J. On the 18th October, 1979, the Acting Director-General of the said Ministry forwarded to the respondent Commission the report of the Departmental Board which recommended in alphabetical order four candidates, among which the two 5 applicants, as suitable for selection for the aforesaid post. In its report (Appendix 3A) the Departmental Committee pointed out that three out of the seven candidates did not possess the required qualifications under the schemes of service but found that the remaining four did possess such qualifi10 cations. The respondent Commission interviewed separately these four candidates on the 3rd December, 1979, in the presence of the Director of the Department of Welfare Services, who gave his impressions from these interviews and classified the candidates as follows (Appendix 5): 15
(1)MichaelChristoforos—He was sufficiently analytical in his reply on the subjects which were raised during the interview and he made the best impression with regard to the analysis of the subject and the formulation of his replies, both in Greek and in English. 20
(2)RoussosArgyris—The observations with regard to the previous candidate are applicable, but he made a better impression. 25 .
(3)Kleanthous Socrates—Although he was analytical in his reply, he was devoid of foresight to grasp the problems and their causes and to look for solutions for them.
(4)Frangoulides Charilaos—He did not show that he understood the questions, he did not answer satisfactorily and he did not make a good impression. 30 The Director of the Department then said that he was in a difficult position to chose between Michael and Roussou. Both were equal as regards performance in their work. In certainfields the oneissuperior and in otherstheother. From the point of view of experience and seniority, Michael is very 35 superior. From scientific point of view, Michael carried out moreresearches, although formally his qualifications are lower. After the withdrawal of the Director, the respondent Commission took up the examination of the relevant schemes of 731 A. Loizou J. Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)service which require as an indispensable qualification a Uni versity title or equivalent diploma in Social Work, Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subjects, and decided to ask the views of the Attorney-General on the correct meaning of the term "equivalent Diploma" (isodynamou diplomatos) in the schemes of service and whether the following diplomas could be considered as equivalent diplomas for the purposes of the said scheme: 5 (
- a)Diplomain Social Policy and Administration, Swansea University College. 10 (
- b)Post-graduate Diploma in Urban Social Development, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Netherlands. (
- c)Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Sociology, after studies of one and a half year, namely, from August 1968 to January 1970. The Attorney-General of the Republic by his letter dated 13.2.1980 informed the respondent Commission that the term "equivalent diploma" means a diploma of the level of a Uni versity title but the matter is not a legal but a factual one for which the respondent Commission has exclusive competence 20 to decide and is entitled to ask the view of experts as to the nature andthelevelof the diplomaunderconsiderationinorder to arrive itself at a final evaluation. After the said advice, the respondent Commission asked the views of the DirectorGeneral, Ministry of Education, who, by his letter dated 25 29.3.1980, with regard to the diploma in Social Policy and Administration had the following to say: "The Diploma in Social Policy and Administration is mentioned in some way (reference is madetothe Diploma in Social Studies, Diploma in Social Policy) in the book 30 'Higher Education in the UnitedKingdom',pages 246-247, in the section of postgraduate titles and programmes in a special note (please see photocopy, Appendix Ά')However, specific reference of the Diploma in Social Policy and Administration is made at p. 75 of the Pro- 35 spectus of the University of Swansea where it is described as a special programme ona post-graduate levelwhich was first introduced at the University of Swansea in 1953 after 732 15 3 C.L.R. 5 Michael and Another v. P.S.C. A. Lofeou J. a request of the United Nations. The programme may be followed by University graduates and by non-graduates who must, among other things, be able to prove that they arecapable offollowing studiesat a University level(please see photocopy Appendix *B')". When the respondent Comrnission noticed that applicant Michael possessed the Diploma in Social Welfare for Students from Overseas of the University College of Swansea, asked the views of the Ministry of Education as regards this one as 10 well. It also asked the views of the appropriate Authority as to whether the aforesaid qualifications could be considered as a University title or equivalent diploma in Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subjects in accordance with the schemes of service. 15 The respondent Commission at its meeting of the 16th February, 1981(Appendix 7)considered the letters ofthe Direclor -General, Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, dated 30.6.80 and 23.1.81 whereby he certified that the qualifications of the candidates were, in his view considered as University 20 title or other equivalent diploma, etc.,andthat that wasimplied from the fact that the candidates recommended from the Departmental Board, with which the appropriate Authority agreed, were considered as suitable to compete for the post of Principal Welfare Officer. In its minute (Appendix 7 25 exh. A), the respondent Committee sums up the position and sets out also the views of interested party Roussos who, by letter dated 13.11.1980, maintained that the Diploma in Social Policy and Administration which was given after a one year's study could not be considered as a University title or 30 its equivalent in accordance with the scheme of service. In support of that allegation, he forwarded also a letter of the University of London to a certain Mr. A. Sawides, dated 18.5.1979. The respondent Commission refers also to the letter of the Director-General of the Ministry of Education 35 of the 19.11.1980 with regard to the level of the diplomas "Diploma in Social Policy and Administration" and "Diploma in Social Welfare for Students from Overseas" of the University College of Swansea, and the replies of the Department of Education and Science of the United Kingdom as well as 40 of the University College of Swansea, attached to it. 733 A. Loizou J. Michael and Another ?. P.S.C.
(1982)In its letter the Department of Education and Science of the United Kingdom, dated 29.10.1980, mentions that the course "Social Policy and Administration" of Swansea is a postgraduate course of a duration of nine months for students of developingcountries orthosewhoworkindevelopingcountries. 5 With regard to the "Diploma in Social Welfare for Students from Overseas" they said that they had no details ofthe course and suggested that for both diplomas the University College of Swansea and the "National Equivalence Information Centre of the British Council" in London, should be asked. 10 In the letter of the University College of Swansea dated 3.11.1980 (exhibit 7, Doc. No. 11), the following is stated: "Thank you for your letter of 7thOctober enquiring about the level of the Diplomas awarded by us. I am very pleased to enclosecopies of our current brochures,together 15 with the latest newsletter of the Centre, our '21st Anniversary Bulletin' and the College prospectus. In fact thelong-standing 'overseas courses' became the foundation of this Centre in
- As far as your specific query is concerned, you will see 20 on page 2 of the enclosed Bulletin that the Social Welfare Diploma was re-named the Diploma in Social Policy and Administration in
- This Diploma has always been postgraduate, in the sense that the majority of entrants have been graduates and the level has been set for them 25 and by them. However, in that it is obtained after only one academic year of study, it is not normally regarded by British universities as equivalent to a first degree. For example, in considering our Diploma graduates for entry to our own M.Sc. programmes, the University is only 30 prepared to consider them if, prior to the Diploma, they have completed two or more years of study at tertiary level (though not necessarily at a University). As you may know a dozen or more Cypriot students have successfully completed the Diploma course over the 35 years, even though they were non-graduates and had comparatively little experienceofadvanced study.Though the course is normally postgraduate it has always been our policy to admit a small number of students each year 734 3 C.L.R. Michael and Another v. P.S.C. A. Loizou J. ' (3-4 out of 20) who are experienced and well-supported by referees but have not had the opportunity to complete degrees. 5 10 15 It is important to stress that concessions are not made to such students. In order to pass they have to attain the level set for postgraduates and, if necessary, to work with enormous application to catch up on basic social science subjects in addition to the normalDiploma curriculum. In sum, the Diploma is not equivalent to a first degree interms of length but, in terms of the quality of academic work required to reach pass level, it is higher, in terms of salary increments, I understand that it is counted in many countries as equivalent to a first degree, not only because of the level reached but also because of the fact that it is oriented towards improving working performances. I hope that this explanation satisfactorily answers your queries and trust that, in the future, we may have the pleasure of receiving other students from Cyprus". 20 Therespondent Committeethendecidedto obtain inaddition the views of the National Equivalence Information Centre of the British Council as it was advised to do. It decided further to ask from the appropriate Authorities of the Netherlands, through the Ministry of Foieign Affairs, information as to 25 whether the "Postgraduate Diploma in Urban Social Development" of the Institute of Social Studies of Hague which was possessed-by applicant Michael, wasequivalent to a University degree or diploma. At its meeting of the 29.4.81 (see Minutes App. 8), it con30 sidered a letter from the Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 14.3.1981, by which he transmitted a telexdated 10.3.1981(exhibit 7,Doc. No.3)from theAmbassador of the Republic in Brussels, who is also accredited to the Netherlands, and which is as follows: 35 "'Post Graduate Diploma in Urban Social Development* which is obtained after special studies by already holders of a degree (Bachelors). Inexceptional circumstances, however, and if the general 735 A. Lotzou J. Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)level of the candidate is found to be satisfactory (experience, output in work, etc.), it is possible for one to be accepted to follow relevant lessons and obtain 'Post Graduate Diploma in Urban Social Studies' without being already 'Bachelor'. In any event this diploma is 5 independent and is not equivalent with a Universitydegree since for the B.A. there are required three to four years of studies, whereas for this diploma for which you are interested are needed nine months of studies. L a it benoted that thiscoursehasalready beenreplaced 10 by another which has the title 'Rural and Agricultural Project'. Duration six months". It further considered a telex of the Central Information Services of the British Council to th* British Council Cyprus dated 22.4.1981 (exhibit 7, Document No. 1), with regard to 15 the "Diploma in Social Welfare for Students Overseas" or "Diploma in Social Policy and Administration" of the University of Swansea, which was in response to a letter of the Chairman of the respondent Commission dated 23rd February, 1981, addressed to the British Council in London (exhibit 7, 20 Document No. 5). They read as follows:(Document No. 5): "I shall be grateful if you would kindly supply this office with information on the academic significance accorded by the 'National Equivalence Information Centre' to the 25 'Diploma in Social Welfare for Students from Overseas' or 'Diploma in Social Policy and Administration' awarded by the University College of Swansea of the University of Wales. The question at issue is whether the Diploma in Social 30 Welfare or in Social Policy and Administration, of the University College of Swansea, University of Wales, is regarded in the United Kingdom as equivalent to a Fiist Degree. The Centre for Development Studies of the University 35 College of Swansea has informed the Director-General of the Ministiy of Education of Cyprus, bya letter dated 3rd November, 1980, signed by the Deputy Director, that the 736 3C.L.R. 5 Michael and Another v. P.S.C. A. Loizou J. said Diploma 'is not normally regarded by British Universities as equivalent to a First Degree' and that it 'isnot equivalent toa First Degreeintermsoflengthbut, interms of the quality of academic work required to reach pass level, it is higher"'. (Document No. 1): "BRITCOUN C/O UKREP NICOSIA 10 15 20 25 30 FOR REPRESENTATIVE FROM PICKARD. CISW350 DIPLOMA IN SOCIAL POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION IS A POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA. CANDIDATES SHOULD NORMALLY POSSESS A DEGREE OR HAVE COMPLETED AT LEAST TWO YEARS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION. WITH AT LEAST THREE YEARS RELEVANT WORKING EXPERIENCE. WOULD EMPHASISE THAT IT IS A POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA RATHER THAN A POSTGRADUATE' DEGREE. ALTHOUGH ACADEMIC LEVEL IS POSTGRADUATE. A HOLDER OF THIS DIPLOMA WHO DOES NOT POSSESS A FIRST DEGREE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING A FIRST DEGREE. AS SUBJECT MATTER OF DIPLOMA IS VERY SPECIALISED AND ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TO A FIRST DEGREE COURSE IN ANY SUBJECT. HOLDER OF DIPLOMA WOULD BE QUALIFIED FOR WORK IN A SPECIALISED FIELD. PLEASE APOLOGISE FOR DELAY DUE TO ABSENCE ON LEAVE. PLEASE NOTE ALSO THAT COMPARISON OF BRITISH QUALIFICATIONS IS DEALT WITH BY CIS SUBJECT SERVICES. NOT NEIC". In the said minute the respondent Commission also refers to a letter of applicant Michael dated 28.3.1981 whereby he maintained that the "Diploma in Social Welfare for Students 35 from Overseas" or "Diploma in Social Policy and Administration" ofthe University of Swansea,and the "Postgraduate Diploma in Urban Social Development" of the Institute of SocialStudiesoftheNetherlands,wereequivalent ofa University 737 A. Loizou J. Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)title and therefore he satisfied the requirements of the scheme of service for the post of Principal Welfare Officer. The respondent Commission then set out in the said minutes its conclusions on the qualifications of the two applicants and the other candidate Kleanthous: "The Commission after a detailed study of the scheme of service, came to the conclusion that the Diploma in Social Welfare which previously was entitled 'Diploma in Social Policy and Administration' could not be considered as a University title or equivalent diploma in 'Social Work, Sociology, Social 10 Psychology or other suitable subject' within the meaning of para. 3(
- a)of the scheme of service". Likewise the Commission concluded that the Postgraduate Diploma in Urban Social Development of the Institute of Social StudiesoftheHague,cannot beconsidered asa University 15 title or equivalent diploma as above. In view of the above, the candidates recommended by the Departmental Board, Messrs. Socrates Kleanthous, who is the holder of a Diploma in Social Policy and Administration of the University College of Swansea and Diploma of the British 20 Tutorial Institute of a completed series of lessons (Course of Study in Social Welfare) by correspondence, Christoforos Michael, who possesses a Diploma in Social Welfare of the University College of Swansea and Postgraduate Diploma in Urban Social Development of the Institute of Social Studies 25 of the Hague, and Charilaos Frangoulides, who possesses a Postgraduate Diploma in Social Policy and Administration of the University College of Swansea and Diploma in Business Management of La Salic Extension University of Chicago, by correspondence, are found that they do not satisfy thescheme 30 of service and consequently they cannot assume the post of Principal Welfare Officer. Particularly for Mr. Charilaos Frangoulides it is noted that the Diploma in Business Management, although it is of a three years cycle of studies and consequently it could be considered 35 as equivalent to a University title, yet it refers to a subject not suitable in the sense of para. 3(
- a)of the scheme of service. It was after this conclusion that the respondent Commission 738 5 3 C.L.R. Michael and Another v. P.S.C. A. Loizou J. proceeded to examine the merits, qualifications and abilities of the interested party Roussos and decided to promote him to the permanent post of Principal Welfare Officer as from the 15.5.1981. 5 10 15 20 25 30 The identical grounds of law relied upon by each applicant in support of his application, as set out therein, are the following :"(A) The applicant satisfied the scheme of service in force at the time of the decision and the decision taken that the applicant does not possess all the qualifications required by the scheme of service is contrary to law. (B) The decision is contrary to law as being contrary to the Regulations issued under section 36 of the Public Service Law. The applicant under regulation 7 of the said Regulations was chosen together with' three other applicants by the Departmental Board as suitable for promotion and the Public Service Commission had no right to question the qualifications of the applicant since at its meeting of the 17th February, 1977,it had decided that he possesses the qualifications required by the relevant scheme of service for the post of Principal Welfare Officer. (C) The Public Service Commission acted contrary to the Regulations as after it decided that the applicant did not satisfy the required qualifications under the relevant scheme of service, it did not refer the matter back to the Departmental Board for submission by it of a new list of candidates. (D) That the decision of the respondent Commission is not duly reasoned. (E) The applicant is manifestly superior to the interested party with regard to service and qualifications". 35 This ground dealing with the comparison of the candidates was abandoned as no such comparison was made between the applicants once the two applicants were excluded as not being eligible for non-possessing the required qualifications. 739 A. Loizou J. Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)I may conveniently dispose first of ground (D) regarding the alleged lack of reasoning of the subject decision. No doubt an examination of the text of the decision as such and a perusal of the record as already outlined in this judgment, shows that the subject decision is duly and cogently reasoned 5 viewed both by itself and as supplemented by all the material in the file. Moreover it was taken after a painstaking and thorough inquiry which showed how mindful of its responsibilities and anxious to arrive at the right decision on the matter the respondent Commission has been. 10 Relevant to the grounds of law argued is section 36 of the Public Service Law 1967(Law No. 33 of 1967) which reads as follows:"
(1)The Council of Ministers may establish Departmental Boards to advise the Commission in respect of appoint- 15 ments or promotions to any office which isnot a specialized office.
(2)The composition, functions and procedure of any such Board shall be determined bythe Council of Ministers". In the exercise of its powers under subsection 2 hereof, the 20 Council of Ministers prepared regulations which came into force on the 1st June, 1979 (exhibit 2) and to those relevant to our case reference will be made in due course. It has been the case for the applicants that once they were placed on the list of candidates under regulation 4, which 25 provides that the Departmental Board examines all the applications received for the published vacant post or depending on the circumstances, the list of the candidates for promotion, and prepares a list of those candidates who possess the qualificationsspecifiedintherelevantschemeofservice,therespondent 30 Commission could not itself inquire further into the question whether the candidates so placed on the list possessed the required qualifications or not. In support thereof reference was made to the provisions of regulations 5and 6whereby the Departmental Board considers the merit of the candidates 35 and then submits a report to the Public Service Commission containing in alphabetical order the names of those recommended for selection, for appointment or promotion, together 740 3 C.L.R. Michael and Another v. P.S.C. A. Loizou J. with the conclusions of the Departmental Board regarding the merit of all the candidates and that not lessthan two not more than four may be recommended for every vacant post so long as there exist suitable candidates for such recommendation. 5 Moreover, regulation 7 was invoked as setting down the powers and duties of the Public Service Commission as being that after taking into consideration the conclusions of the Departmental Board regarding the.candidates, the Commission proceeds to select those to be appointed or to be promoted 10 out of those recommended by the Depaitmental Board, giving reasons for such final. selection. I do not subscribe to this view. The functions of the Public Ssrvice Commission are set out in section 5 of the law. It reads: 15 20 "Save where other express provision is made in this or any other law with respect to any matter set out in this section and subject to the provisions of this or any other law in force for the time being, it shall be the duty of the Commission toappoint,confirm, emplaceonthepermanent establishment, promote,transfer, second, retireandexercise disciplinary control over, including dismissal or removal from office of, public officers". Therefore, whatever the provisions of the aforementioned regulations are, they could not take away the competence of the respondent Commission as provided by the law and they 25 have to be interpreted in such a way.as to be intra vires and not ultraviresoftheempoweringlaw. Inmyview,theycannot but be considered as regulating the functions of the Departmental Boards and as setting out the procedure to be followed bythemfor thepurpose ofassistingthePublicServiceCommis30 sion toexerciseitscompetence under the law,which inthecase of promotions is regulated further by section 44 of the Law, whereby under para, (b) of subsection 1thereof, one of the matters to beexamined bythe Commission iswhether a candidatefor promotion toanother office possesses the qualifications 35 laid down in the scheme of service for that office. In fact on the 11thJuly, 1974and on the 13thJanuary,1977. applicant Michaelwasconsideredbytherespondent Commission as a candidate for the vacant post of Principal Welfare Officer. On the second occasion applicant Frangoulides was also consi741 A. Loizou J. Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)dercd, though neither of them was selected for promotion. It has been argued on their behalf that once theywereso treated onthoseoccasionsaspossessingtherequiredqualifications under the relevant scheme of servicefor the said post, the respondent Commission could not inquire into the question of their quali- 5 fications afresh. In my view the respondent Commission was not in law precluded, and indeed it had a duty, to examine whether the applicants, along with all other candidates, had, on the occasion under consideration, the required qualifications under the relevant scheme of service for the post in question. 10 Moreso,inview ofthefact that different personswereinvolved on this occasion, as compared with the candidates that it had beforeitonthetwopreviousoccasions. Supportfor thisproposition may be found in the case of Ktorides v. The Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R., p. 171,where at page 174, Triantafyllides, 15 P., says: " andthefact thathehad beenpreviously promoted, in 1964,to thepost ofAssistant Inspector, under a scheme of service requiring the same educational qualification as the scheme of service for the post involved in the present 20 proceedings, did not preclude the respondent Commission —which was set up under the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67) and is a different body from that functioning in 1964—from ensuring on the present occasion due compliance with the relevant scheme of service, in 25 a manner in which it was reasonably open to it, even if the conclusion it reached as to the level of the education of the applicant was not thesame as before (and see,also, in this respect Sofocleous (No. 2) v. TheRepublic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 537)". 30 Admittedly,theprincipleissomehowqualified bythe reference that the respondent Commission in that case was a different body from that functioning in 1964 but that, in my view, does not exclude the application of the principle when it comes to a determination of the matter by the same body and in any 35 event where the rights to be determined include persons which were not parties to anothci administrative act reached on a previous occasion between different parties. This ground, therefore, should fail. The next ground relied upon on behalf of the applicants has 40 742 3 C.L.R. Michael and Another v. P.S.C. A. Loizou J. been that when the scheme of service speaks of a "Univeisity title"it does not mean a title in "Social Work, Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subject", which categories should be read in conjunction with the term "equivalent diploma" 5 that precedes them in the relevant part of the scheme of service, but any University title whatsoever and applicant Frangoulides should have been considered eligible because he possesses a Diploma in Business Management of La SalleExtension University of Chicago, by correspondence, which is of a three year 10 cycle of studies, though not falling within the categories enumerated in the scheme of service. I do not subscribe to that interpretation. The afoicsaid scheme of service provides in so far as relevant to this argument: 15 "3. Required qualifications (a) University title or equivalent diploma in Social Work, Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subject". This provision has to be read as a whole and not read as meaning University title of any kind and unrelated to Social 20 Work, Sociology, Social Psychology or other suitable subject which, it has been urged, only relate to the alternative to the "University title", namely the "equivalent diploma". It would be unreasonable to consider that there was no restriction to the "University title" relevant to the nature of the duties of the 25 office and yet there were mch restrictions in the case when the alternative of an "equivalent diploma" is possessed. Finally, it has been argued that the qualifications of the two applicants did notjustify the conclusion of the respondent Commission that they were not eligible. I do not agree with this 30 submission either as on the material before it the respondent Commission could reasonably arrive at the conclusion it did. It was established in the case of Papapetrou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C, p. 61, and reiterated in Petsas v. The Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. p. 60, at p. 63, that: 35 " this Court will not give to a scheme of service an interpretation other than that given to it bythe Commission, provided that such interpretation was reasonably 743 A. Loizou J. Michael and Another v. P.S.C.
(1982)open tothe Commission. Likewise,in determining whether a certain applicant in fact possesses the relevant qualifications the Commission is given a discretion, and this Court can only examine whether the Commission, on the material before it, could reasonably have come to a 5 particular conclusion". This principle has been consistently followed by this Court in a number of caseswhicharereferred to in the caseofAndreou v. The Republic
(1979)3 C.L.R., p. 379, at pp. 386-7. In the present case I have come to the conclusion that it 10 was reasonably open to therespondent Commission to interpret and apply the relevant scheme of service as it has done. The fact that in its reasoning it refers to the question of the time length necessary for obtaining the qualifications possessed by the applicants, does not change the position as the length 15 required for a particular course is a factor to be taken into consideration along with other factors when considering whether a diploma is equivalent to the required University title. For all the above reasons these recourses are dismissed but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs. 20 Applications dismissed. No order as to costs. 744