CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CYPRUS ON APPEAL AND IN ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Cyprus Law Reports Volume 3 (Administrative) 1983 January 15 [A. Loizou, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION MARIA PIERIDOU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 448/80). Publicofficers—Appointmentsandpromotions—Interviewofcandidates •—Performance at—Nothing wrong inlawtoattachthe necessary importance to such performance because it reveals a candidate's personality and ability—Subjudice decision reasonably open to theCommission on the totality of the materialbefore it. This was a recourse against the validity of the promotion and/or appointment to the post of Examiner 2nd Grade in the Audit Office of the three interested parties in preference and instead, of the applicant. In taking the sub judice decision the respondent Public Service Commission took, inter alia, into consideration the performance of each of the candidates at the interview, their confidential reports and the views and recommendations of the Head of Department. 1 Piertdou v. Republic
(1983)Held,that on the totality of the material before the Commission, including all the relevant factors that under section 44 of the Public Service Law, 1967had to betaken ioto consideration, the sub judice decisions, which were duly reasoned and arrived at after due and proper inquiry, were reasonably open 5 to it and there has beenneither wrong exercise of discretion nor abuse or excess of power nor any misconception of fact in any respect; that, no doubt, the performance at the interviews played a role and there is nothing wrong in law to attach the necessary importance to them as such interviews reveal a can- 10 didate's personality and abilities; that the impressions created at the interviews were not the only ones that weighed with the respondent Commission which had before it the confidemial reports of those already in the service and the recommendations cf the Head of the Department which were born out by and 15 consistent with the rest of the material that the respondent Commission had before it in taking the subject decisions; accordingly the recourse must fail. Application dismissed. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to promote and/or appoint the interested parties to the post of Examiner, 2nd Grade in the Audit Office, in preference and instead of the applicant. E. Efstathiou, for the applicant. A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. A. Loizou J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant challenges the validity of the promotion 30 and/or appointment to the post of Examiner, 2nd Grade in the Audit Office of Florentia Evripidou, Panayiotis Lambrou and Alkis Eraclides,hereinafter to be referred to asthe interested parties. As the said post is a first entry and promotion post, the 35 respondent Commission advertised in the Official Gazette of the 23rd November, 1979, the existing vacancies inviting applications giving three weeks during which applications ought to be submitted. In response thereof, 50 such applications 2 20 25 3 C.L.R. Pieridou v. Republic A. Loizou J. were received and forwarded together with the personal files and confidential reports of those already in the service, as well as with all other necessary documents, to the Auditor-General of the Republic in his capacity as a Chairman of the Depart5 mentalBoard. After examiningallapplicationsanddocuments, the Board invited the candidates to an interview which 41 of the 50 candidates attended. In its turn it transmitted to the respondent Commission its minutes (Appendix 4A in the bundle of documents attached to the Opposition). The said 10 Board recommended in alphabetical order 16of the candidates, amongwhom theapplicant and theinterestedparties,assuitable for promotion or appointment as superior to the rest of the candidates. These 16 applicants were invited for an interview by the respondent Commission; 10 of them were interviewed ]5 on the 10th,2onthe 1Ith andtheremaining4onthe 12thApril, 1980, in the presence of the Auditor-General who was invited by the respondent Commission to be present and assist. The relevant minutes are Appendices 6, 7 and 8 in the bundle of documents attached to the Opposition. 20 After the conclusion of the interviews, the Auditor-General wasasked by the respondent Commission to express hisassessment and opinion on the performance of each one of the candidates during the interviews with it, which in so far as the applicant and the interested parties are concerned, were 25 the following:- 30 "
(1)Maria Pieridou—She answered generally well but in two questions shegaveno answer. Sheisverysensitive, she bursts without reason into criesduring the interview. This fact confirms the situation which is observed in the Office where she works as Examiner of Accounts, 3rd Grade, whenever a serious service subject arises.
(2)FlorentiaEvripidouShc was firm, her answers were very good, she is clever and her English very good. 35
(3)Panayiotis Lambrou—H& was firm in his replies, he answered correctly and his English was good. In his case it will be a question of promotion, his experience generally in the audit as Examiner of Accounts, 3rd Grade, is excellent.
(4)Alkis Eraclides—His answers were firm, he performed 3 A. Loizou J. Pieridou v. Republic
(1983)welland hisEnglish wasgood. Asa casual ("ektaktos") Examiner of Accounts, 3rd Grade, he renders excellent service on account of his knowledge and his Diploma in Lawwhich hepossesses,factors whichwillhelpgreatly in the new image of audit and especially in the strict 5 application of laws and regulations". The Auditor-General then withdrew from the meeting of the respondent Commission which after examining all factors before it, including the applications with the relevant certificates and the personal files and the confidential reports of those 10 candidates who were already civil servants and after taking into consideration the conclusions of the Departmental Board and the performance of each one of the candidates at the interviews with the respondent Commission with it, on the basis oftheviews and recommendations ofthematter oftheAuditor- 15 General, considered that all candidates possessed the required under the relevant scheme of service qualifications, including a good knowledge of the English languageand further "selected the following candidates as superior on the whole of the rest of the candidates and as suitable for appointment/promotion 20 to the permanent (ordinary) post of Examiner of Accounts, 2nd Grade, in the Audit service:
(1)Florentia Evripidou
(2)Theodoulitsa Kouloumbri
(3)Panayiotis Lambrou
(4)Eleni Parouti For promotion For appointment For promotion For appointment". 25 As a result, however, ofthe decision of the respondent Commission to annul the offer which was made to Eleni Parouti for appointment, the question of the filling of the said post by another candidate arose. The respondent Commission 30 as its minutes of the 16th June, 1980 (Appendix 9) read "reexaminedallfactors before it relevant tothefillingofthevacant post and after taking into consideration the applications of the candidates with the relevant certificates, the conclusions of the Departmental Board and the performance of every 35 candidate at the interviews with the respondent Commission and in the light of the views and assessments oftheAuditorGeneral of the Republic on the subject, considered that Alkis 4 3 C.L.R. Pieridou v. Republic A. Loizou J. Eraclides was superior on the whole to the rest of the candidates, found him suitable for the filling of the post and decided to appoint him to the Permanent (Ordinary) Post of Examiner of Accounts, 2nd Grade, in the Audit Department". 5 The general ground o( law upon which the main ground of law relied upon on behalf of the applicant is that the respondent Commission failed in its paramount duty to select the best candidate for the post, inasmuch as she had striking superiority over the remaining parties, seniority over interested party 10 Panayiotis Lambrou, better qualifications than him and with regard to the other interested parties, that she was strikingly ' superior and that it was wrong to assess the candidates by what took place at the interviews alone. Relevant to these issues are the careers and qualifications of the applicants as 15 well as the contents of the confidential reports for those that . were already in the service. The applicant entered the service as an Examiner of Accounts 3rd Grade, on the 15th December, 1970; she is a graduate of the Pancyprian Gymnasium from which she graduated in 1969. 20 She passed the Book-keeping Elementary, Intermediate and Higher, and Accounting Higher Examinations of the L.C.C. and the Government qualifying examinations, General Orders, Financial Instructions and Store Regulations. In the last three confidential reports she is rated for the year 1977 as "very 25 good". Likewise for 1978, where in the majority of ratings for the year 1978 the "excellent" ratings given by the reporting. officer were reduced to "very good" with the observation of the Auditor-General, as countersigning officer, that this reporting officer usually exaggerates things. For the year 30 1979 she is rated as "very good" by the same reporting officer. Panayiotis Lambrou attended the Pancyprian Commercial Lyceum, Larnaca, and graduated from the High Commercial Lyceum of Nicosia in 1957. He passed the L.C.C. Bookkeeping Intermediate and Accounting Higher Examinations, 35 the Government qualifying examinations, the General Orders, Financial Instructions and Store Regulations. He entered the service as a Storeman 2nd Grade on the 1st November, 1970, he became an Examiner 3rd Grade on the 1st April, 1973 until the 15th June, 1980, when by the sub judice decision 40 he was made an Examiner of Accounts 2nd Grade. 5 A. Loizou J. Pieridou v. Republic
(1983)FlorentiaEvripidougraduated the English School Nicosia in 1974, she passed a good number of G.E.C. University of London examinations of Ordinary Level and one at Advanced Leveland she has a Diploma in Business Sciencesof the Higher School of Economics and Business Sciences, Athens. She 5 joined the service by the sub judice decision. Alkis Eraclides graduated the Pancyprian Gymnasium in 1964 and he obtained a Law Degree at Athens University and he is a registered advocate. He worked as a casual Examiner of Accounts 3rd Grade in the Audit Department as from 10 February 1976until the 15thJune, 1980,whenbythesubjudice decision he was made an Examiner of Accounts 2nd Grade. There are no confidential reports for him because of the casual nature of his employment with the Audit Office, but it is clear that hisperformance at thatwasknownto the Auditor-General. 15 On the totality of the material before the Commission, including all the relevant factors that under section 44 of the Public Service Law 1967 had to be taken into consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the sub judice decisions which are duly reasoned and arrived at after due and proper inquiry, 20 were reasonably open to it and there has been neither wrong exercise of discretion nor abuse or excess of power nor any misconception of fact in any respect. No doubt that the performance at the interviews, both before the Departmental Board as well as the respondent Commission, played a role 25 andthereisnothingwronginlawtoattachthenecessary importance to them as such interviews reveal a candidate's personality and abilities. But the impressions created at the interviews were not the only ones that weighed with the respondent Commission which had before it the confidential reports of those 30 already in the service and the recommendations of the Head of the Department which were born out by and consistent with the rest of the material that the respondent Commission had before it in taking the subject decisions. For all the above reasons this recourse is dismissed, but in 35 the circumstances I make no order as to costs. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 6