(1983)1983 August 1 [SAVVIDES, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION FRIXOS DEMETRIADES AND OTHERS, Applicants, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, Respondents. (Cases Nos. 421/81, 423/81, 432/81, 433/81, 435/81, 442/81, 451/81, 460/81, 461/81, 473/81, 484/81, 489/81, 498/81, 504/81, 2/82, 33/82, 41/82, 52/82, 53/82, 54/82, 55/82, 56/82, 163/82, 168/82). Educational Officers—Promotions—Interview of candidates—Commencedandcompletedin twostages with anintervalof 18 months —Performance of candidates at the interview oneof thefactors taken into consideration—No record in the relevantminutes of the Committee as to suchperformance—Change in number ofposts thathad to befilledbetween theinterviewand thesub judice promotions—Amendment of schemesof service between the two interviewsand previously interviewedcandicates who satisfiednew schemesof servicewerenot interviewed after the amendment,and no recordwas made about their performance at the first interview—One of the membersof theCommittee absent at thefirst interview when 194candidates were interviewed —Subjudicepromotionsannulledfor lack of duereasoning and wrong exerase of discretion. Educational Officers—Promotions—Administrative abilities of the candidatescouldnot be taken into consideration because such factor is not providedby section 35 of the Public Educational 842 3 C.L.R. Demetriades and Others v. Republic Service Law, 1969 (Law 10/69)—// is an extraneousfactor which renders subjudice decision badfor wrong exercise of discretion. Administrative Law—Discretionary powers—Defective exercise of, through taking into consideration an extraneous factor. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Educational Officers—Promotions—Personal views of members of respondent Commission about the candidates—Principles on which they may be taken into account. The applicants in these recourses challenged the validity of the promotion of 61 out of 76 schoolmasters, to the post of Assistant Headmaster in the secondary education in preference to them. It was clear from the minutes of the decision of the respondent Commission that one of the factors that they took into consideration in effecting the sub judice promotions was the view formed by its members during the interviews about each one of the candidates. It was, also, clear from these minutes that the Commission took into consideration regarding the interested parties, "administrative ability and/or their high academic qualifications and/or their long experience as well as the excellent impression that the members of the Committee have about their personality and their paedagogical and scientific backgrounds". The interviews for the intended promotions commenced and were completed in two stages. Thefirststagetook place between the 28th April, and the 16th May, 1980 and the second stage between the 16th and the 22nd October 1981. The sub judice decision was taken on the 2nd November, 1981. Also during the interval that elapsed between the two stages of the interviewsthe schemes of service were amended. When the Committee was interviewing the candidates, it was considering that 54 posts had to be filled and its mind was directed all along to that fact, whereas, on the date when the subjudice decision was formally taken, they promoted 76 candidates as two days earlier they were authorised to fill an additional number of 22 posts. Further one of the members of the Commission was absent at the first stage of the meetings at which 194 candidates were interviewed. Counsel for the applicant mainly contended that because of the long time that had elapsed between the interviews held during the first stage and those held during the second stage, 843 Demetriadesand Othersv.Republic and the date when the decision was taken, such time being 18 months it was impossible for the members of the respondent Committee when theyfinallymet to take their decision to make a proper comparison of the persons interviewed at such long intervals in the absence of any record kept for the performance of each candidate at the interviews.
(1983)5 Held, that intheabsenceof anyrecord inthe relevant minutes of the meeting of the respondent Committee as to the performance and the specialviewformed about each candidate, it could not be possible for its members to have clearly in mind when 10 taking the sub judice decision on 2.11.1981, the views formed about candidates interviewed 18 months earlier as compared with the views formed from the interviews of candidates whom they saw only a few days before taking their final decision; that the absence of any indication in the records of the 15 Educational Service Committee as to the performance of the candidates at the interviews and their marking (if such system was adopted) touches the validity of a decision; that also there wasirregularity inthewholeprocedure because(
- a)ofthechange inthenumber ofpoststhathadtobefilledbetweentheinterview 20 and the time of the taking of the subjudice decision (
- b)of the fact that following the amendment of the scheme of service the previously interviewed candidates who satisfied the new schemes of service were not interviewed and there was no record about their preference at the first interview and (
- c)the member of 25 the respondent, who was absent at the first stage of the interviews at which 194candidates were interviewed could not form an opinion about the performance of such candidates and compare them with those seen by him at the subsequent meetings; accordingly the subjudice decision must be annulled both 30 for lack of due reasoning and wrong exercise of discretion. Held, further,
(1)that the administrative abilities of the interestedpartieswasnotavalidconsiderationfor therespondent to bear in mind, since such factor is not one of the factors mentioned in section 35 of Law 10/69, which the Committee 35 may consider in taking itsdecision; that it isan extraneous new factor and as such renders the decision of the respondent bad for wrong exercise of discretion, especially in view of the fact that such administrative ability was not a requirement of the schemes of service and there isnothing to show that any of the 40 candidates had exercised any administrative duties in the past* 844 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 Demetriades and Others v. Republic
(2)That with regard to the taking into consideration the excellent impression that the members of the Committee had about thepersonality oftheinterested partiesit isnot mentioned in the relevant minutes of the Committee how.its members acquired such excellent impression; that personal knowledge or information possessed by members: of a collective organ may be validly taken into consideration provided that they merely strengthen the picture appearing in the files; otherwise it should be recorded in detail so as to enablejudicial control; that as in this case it has not been recorded the sub judice decision must be annulled on this ground also. "Subjudice decision annulled. Cases referred to: NemitsasIndustries Ltd. v. MunicipalCorporation ofLimassol
(1967)3 C.L.R. 134; Papaleontiou v. Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 54 at p. 62; HadjiGeorghiou v. Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 436 at.p. 445; Michaeioudes and Another v. Republic
(1979)3 C.L.R. 56 at pp. 71-72; loannouv. Electricity Authorityof Cyprus
(1981)3 C.L.R. 280 at pp. 299-302; Karageorghis v. Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 435; Bagdades v. CentralBank
(1973)3 C.L.R. 417 at p. 460; Georghiou v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 17 at p. 34; Protopapas v. E.S.C.
(1981)3 C.L.R. 456 at p.
- Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondents to promote the interested parties to the post of Assistant Headmaster in the secondary education in preference and instead of the applicants. 30 C. Clerides,for applicants in cases Nos. 421/81 and 489/
- A. S. Angelides, for applicants in cases Nos. 423/81, 432/81, 433/81, 435/81, 451/81, 460/81, 461/81, 473/81, 484/81, 504/81, 41/82 and 163/
- 35 A. S. Angelides for A. TriantafylHdes> for applicant in Case No. 442/
- A. S. Angelides for T. Papadopoullos, for applicants in Cases Nos. 52/82 - 56/
- 845 Demetriades and Others τ. Republic
(1983)Ph. Valiandis, for applicant in Case No.498/
- K. Anastassiades for E. Efstathiou,for applicant in Case No. 2/
- A. Pandelides, for applicant in Case No. 33/
- A. S. Angelidesfor P. Pavlou, for applicant in Case No. 5 168/
- R. Vrahimi (Mrs.), for respondents in Case Nos. 421/81, 423/81, 451/81, 461/81, 473/81, 484/81, 489/81,504/81, 2/82, 53/82-56/82, 163/82 and 168/
- E. Papadopoullou (Mrs.),for respondents in the remaining 10 cases. TV.Ioannou (Mrs.), for interested party Ioanna Moushiouta, in Cases 432/81, 433/81, 435/81, 489/81, 504/81, 2/82 and 41/
- Cur. adv. vult. 15 SAVVIDES J. read the following judgment. The applicants in these 24 recourses challenge thevalidity of the promotion of 61 out of 76 school masters, colleagues of theirs, to the post of Assistant Headmaster in the secondary education in preference to them. Each recourse is directed against the promotion of 20 different persons, but in their totality the recourses attack the validity of thepromotionsof 61 from thosepromotedwhowere served as interested parties, with copies of the recourses con cerning each one of them. In the course of these proceedings the recourse against interested party MaroMichaelidou(P.M.P. 25 4049)in Case No. 168/82, was withdrawn and as the promotion of this interested party is challenged only in that recourse, the recourseagainst heris dismissedandthenumberoftheinterested parties is, therefore, reduced to
- When these recourses came up for directions before me, 30 counsel appearing for all parties concerned, stated that these cases presented common questions of law which could be dealt with as preliminary points of law inrespect of all cases, andthat after determinationof suchpoints, if necessary, eachcase could be heard separately on the merits. 35 Thepreliminarypointsoflawagreeduponbetweentheparties, are as follows:
- That theprocedure followed by the respondent Committee 846 3 C.L.R. Demetriades and Others v. Republic Savvides J. as well as the procedure in submitting recommendations by the Heads of Departments, is contrary to the Law and to decided cases.
- That the Respondent Committee had prepared a "short5 list"ofcandidates byemployingcriteriaspecified bythemonthe 7.10.1981,thisbeingcontrarytotheLawandasaresultofwhich, in the interviews which followed, they did not receive all the candidates available for promotion.
- That the Respondent Committee, acting contrary to the 10 Lawanddecidedcases,took intoconsideration thespecialisation of the candidates as a criterion for promotion.
- That the Respondent Committee employed as the most serious and decisive criterion, the opinion that its members had formed concerningcandidatesduring theprivate interviewswith 15 each candidate.
- That the Respondent Committee did not proceed to acomplete inquiry into the claims of candidates for promotion and failed to take into consideration the additional qualifications envisaged by the schemes of service. The Respondent Com20 mittee failed to give reasoning for the non promotion of applicants possessing additional qualifications, higher grades and recommendations for promotion and in preference to them it promoted candidates who did not possess the additional qualifications of the applicants. 25
- That the Respondent Committee did not have and/or did not take any measures so as to have before it, all the necessary information and documents regarding all candidates before it proceeded with the promotions challenged, and/or it did not take into consideration such information and documents. 30 In view cf the above statement, the said legalpoints wereset down for hearing as preliminary points of law in all recourses and the question of merit was left to be decided later. It has been common ground for counsel on both sides that the act involved in these proceedings is a composite administrative act 35 and that the invaUdityof any of thecomponent parts whichled to thefinal concluded act, renders all acts whichfollow, including the final act, null and void. This is in line with the well 847 Sawides J. Demetriades and Others v. Republic
(1983)established principles of Administrative Law, as pronounced and adopted by our Supreme Court in a number of cases (see NemitsasIndustriesLtd. v. TheMunicipal Corporation ofLimassoi ind Another
(1967)3 C.L.R. 134, Papaleontiou v. The Republic (through the Public Service Commission)
(1970)3C.L.R. 54 at p. 5 62, HadjiGeorghiou v. The Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 436 at p. 445, Michaeloudes & Another v. TheRepublic (through the Edu cational Service Committee)
(1979)3 C.L.R. 56 at pp. 71-72, Ioannou v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus
(1981)3 C.L.R. 280 at pp. 299 - 302. Also, Conclusionsfrom the Jurisprudence of 10 the Greek Council of State (1929 - 1959) p. 244). The promotions concerned were effected by a decision of the respondent Educational Service Committee taken on the 2nd November, 1981, copy of which has been produced as exhibit 1 before me. The relevant part of this decision, which is at p. 15 3(
- b)of exhibit 1, reads as follows:"(β) Προαγωγέ στή θέση Β. Διευθυντή Σχολείων Μέση* 'Εκπαιδεύσεως Ή 'Επιτροπή Εκπαιδευτική* Υπηρεσία* έχοντα* υπόψη τΐ* διατάξει* τοϋ Νόμου καΐ των Σχεδίων 'Υπηρεσία* καθώς 20 καΐ τΐ* συστάσει* των Οίκείων Τμημάτων (βλ. πρακτ. 29. 10.1981 καΐ παρ. 1 των πρακτικών αυτών), καΐ τΐ* υπη ρεσιακέ* εκθέσεις καΐ λαμβάνοντα* υπόψη την αξία, τά προ σόντα καΐ την αρχαιότητα καθώς καΐ τή γνώμη πού τά μέλη της σχημάτισαν κατά τΙς προσωπικές συνεντεύξεις 25 γιά τόν καθένα άπό τους υποψηφίου*, αποφασίζει διι ot ακόλουθο· Καθηγητές, Τεχνολόγο· καΐ Έκπαιδευτέ* γιά του* οποίου* υπάρχει σύσταση τοϋ Οίκείου Τμήματο* είναι μέ βάση τά πιο πάνω στοιχεία οΐ καταλληλότεροι γιά προαγωγή στή Θέση Β. Διευθυντή, λαμβανομένων είδικά 30 υπόψη της διοικητική* Ικανότητας του* ή/κα! τών υψηλών του* ακαδημαϊκών προσόντων ή/καΙτη* μακροχρόνιας πείρα* του* καθώς καΐ τή* άριστη* έντυπώσεως που τά μέλη τη* Επιτροπή* έχουν γιά ιήν προσωπικότητα τους κοΛ τήν παιδαγωγική καΐ επιστημονική του* συγκρότηση". 35 (The English translation of which reads): ("(
- b)Promotions to the post of Assistant?Headmaster of Schools of Secondary Education. lite Educational Service Committee having in mind the 848 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Demetriades and Others v. Republic Sauldes J. provisions of the Lawand theSchemesof Serviceaswellas the recommendations of the Departments concerned (see > Min.29.10.81andpara. 1 oftheseminutes),and theservice • reports and taking into account the merit, qualifications and seniority as well as the view that its members formed during the interviews about each one of the candidates, decides that the following masters, technologists and instructors for whom there is a recommendation of the Department concerned are, on the basis ofthe abovematerial, the most suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster, taking especially into consideration their administrative ability and/or their high academic qualificationsand/or their longexperience as well asthe excellent impression that the members of the Committee have about their personality and their paedagogical and scientific background.") Itisclearfrom theabovequotedextractthatoneofthefactors that the respondent Committee took into consideration in effecting the subjudice promotions was the view formed by its 20 membersduringtheinterviewsabouteachoneofthecandidates. v Theattention oftheCourt wasdrawntothisfact bycounsel for the applicants who added that it is also clear from exhibits 3 and 4 that the interviews for the intended promotions commenced and werecompleted intwo stages. Thefirst stagetook 25 place between the28thApril and the 16th May, 1980 (see exhibit 4) and the second stage between the 16th and the 22nd October, 1981. It was the contention of counsel for the applicantsthat becasueofthelongtimethathad elapsedbetween the interviewsheld during the first stageand thoseheld during the 30 second stage, and the date when the decision was taken, such time being 18months it wasimpossible for themembers of the respondent Committee when they finally met to take their decisiontomakeapropercomparisonofthepersonsinterviewed at such longintervals in the absence of any record kept for the 35 performance of each candidate at the interviews. He further added that when the interviews commenced till the time they were concluded, the respondent Committee was considering the promotion of 54candidates to the post of Assistant Headmaster whichwasthenumber ofpoststheyhad been authorised 40 to fill. Twodays before their meeting at which the subjudice decision was taken, the Committee was authorised to fill 22 849 Savvides J. Demetriades and Others v. Republic
(1983)additional posts, thus making the total 76 instead of
- No thing appears in the minutes of the Committee, counselconten ded, indicating the line of success of each candidate at the in terviews which took place in 1980 to help the Committeecom pare them with those interviewed 18 months later. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, in answering the address of counsel for the applicants on the above point, contended that since the interviews on both occasions were madefor thefilling of thesame type of post, that is, thepost of Assistant Headmaster, and the candidates were interviewed with the same criteria, the lapse of time is immaterial. 5 10 It is clear from exhibits 2 and 3 that when the respondent Committee held the interviews from the 28th April till the 16th May, 1980, they interviewed the candidates bearing in mind that they had to select the best candidates for filling the 45 15 vacancies in the post of Assistant Headmaster, plus 9 which would be created by thepromotion of 9 Assistant Headmasters to Headmasters. From what appears also from the records of the Committee, during the meetings from the 7th May till the 16th May, 1980 at which a number of 194 candidates were 20 interviewed, only four of the members of the Educational Ser vice Committee were present, the remaining one Mr. A. Papadopoullos, being absent on leave. After the 16th May, 1980, the respondent discontinued interviewing any candidate till the 16th October, 1981 and the taking of a decision as the ap- 25 pointment remained thus in abeyance for 17 months. In the meantime on the 26th September, 1981 the Ministry of Edu cation sent the following letter to the respondent (exhibit 2):"Πρόεδρο Έτητροττη* 'Εκπαιδευτική* Υπηρεσία*, 30 Έχω δδηγίε* νά σα* πληροφορήσω διι το 'Υπουργείο ΟΙκονομικων έχει εγκρίνει τήν πλήρωση πάνω σέ μόνιμη βάση 9 θέσεων Διευθυντών Μέση* 'Εκπαιδεύσεως καΐ 45 θέσεων Βοηθών Διευθυντών Σχολών Μέση* 'Εκπαιδεύσεως καθώς καΐ των θέσεων των Βοηθών Διευθυντών πού Θά 35 κενωθούν ύστερα από προαγωγέ*. '
- 'Εξάλλου, το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο, κατά τή Συ νεδρία τουτη*24.9.1981 £χειεγκρίνει νέαΣχέδια Υπηρεσία* 850 3 CX.R. Demetriades and Others v. Republic Sawldes J. γιά T!Sπιοπάνωθέσει*. 'Αντίγραφα των Σχεδίων Υπη ρεσία* τών θέσεωι» αυτών επισυνάπτονται. (Υπ.) Χρ. Ιωάννου Γιά Άν. Γενκό Διευθυντή". '5 10 15 ("Chairman, Educational Service Committee, I am directed toinform you that the Ministry ofFinance has approved thefilling, ona permanentbasis, of 9posts of Headmaster, Secondary Education anil 45 Assistant Headmasters, Secondary Education as well as the posts of As sistant Headmasters which will become vacant after the promotions.
- Besides, the Council of Ministers, at its meeting of the 24.9.1981 has approved new schemes of service for the above posts. Copies of the schemes of service of these posts are attached. (Sgd.) Chr.Ioannou for Ag.Director-General"). According to paragraph
(2)of the above letter new schemes 20 of service had been approved by the Council of Ministers on 24.9.81 and in consequence the respondent when continuing the interviews they had to bear in mind the new schemes of service. As a result of such letter, the respondent Committee meton7.10.1981(seeexhibit 3)anddecided topublish theposts 25 of Assistant Headmaster and invite applications for the filling of suchposts,thelast datefor which wasfixed the23rd October,
- The decision then goes on as follows: 30 35 "(γ) άφοϋ μελέτησε του* Φακέλλου*δλων τών καθηγητών, τεχνολόγων καΐ εκπαιδευτικών πού δικαιούνται σέ προαΥ ω γή στή θέση Β. Διευθυντή καΐ επειδή 6 αριθμό* ιών ένλόγω υποψηφίωνεϊναι μεγάλος ένώ ό αριθμόςτώνκενών θέσεωνείναιπεριορισμένοςαποφασίζεινά επιλέξει άπόαυτού* τους έπικρατέοιερού* μέ βάση τήν αξία, τά προσόντακαΐ τήν αρχαιότητα καΐ νά τού* καλέσει σέ προσωπικήουνένπνξί] στί* 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 καί 22 'Οκτωβρίου
- Συγκεκριμένα αποφασίζεται νά κληθούν όσοι έχουν στί* 31.8.1981 πάνω άττό25 έτη υπηρεσία καί στί* δυό τελευιαΐες εμπιστευτικέ* εκθέσει* τουλάχιστο ευδόκιμο υπηρεσία, όσοι έχουν στίς 31.8.1981 πάνω άπό 20 έτη υπηρεσία καί 851 Sawldes J. Demetriades and Others v. Republic
(1983)μέσο δρο βαθμολογία* σαΊς δυό τελευταίες ύπηρεσιακέ* εκθέσει* τουλάχιστον 31, όσοι έχουν στί* 31.8.1981 πάνω άπό 15 έτη υπηρεσία καί μέσο δρο βαθμολογία* στίς δυό τελευταίες υπηρεσιακέ* εκθέσει* τουλάχιστον 32, καί άπό τους υπόλοιπου* δικαιούχου* ooot έχουν μέσο δρο βαθμόλογία* στίς δυό τελ*υταϊες υπηρεσιακές εκθέσει* τουλάχιστο 33 καθώς καί Οσοι έχουν ευδόκιμο τουλάχιστον υπηρεσία άλλα έχουν μεταπτυχιακά τίτλο. 'Αποφασίζειαι επίσης άπό τους πιό πάνω νά μή κληθούν ξανά όσοι κλήθηκαν καί προσήλθαν σέ προσωπική συνέιπευξη μέ βάση τήν απόφαση τη* 'Επιτροπήςμέημερομηνία 14.4.1980". 5 10 ("(
- c)after having considered thefiles of all school masters, technologists and instructors who are entitled to promotion to thepost ofAssistant Headmasterand because thenumber 15 of the said candidates is great whereas thenumber of vacant posts is limited it decides to select from them the most suitable on the basis of merit, qualifications and seniority and to call them for a personal interview on the 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 October, 1981. 20 Precisely it decides to call those who have on the 31.8.81 more than 25 years of service and in the last two confiden tial reports at least successful service, those who have on the 31.8.1981 more than 20 years of service and an average grade in the last two service reports of at least 31, those 25 who have on 31.8.1981 morethan15 years of service and an average grade in the last two service reports at least 32, and from the rest of those entitled those who have an average grade in the last two service reports at least 33 as well as those who have at least successful service but have a post 30 graduate title. It also decides thatfrom the above not to call again those who were called and attended a personal interview on the basis of the decision of the Committee dated 14.4.1980"). It is manifest from the above decision that the candidates 35 who were to be included in the short list for interviews had to satisfy certain criteria which were not considered a prerequisite when the interviews of the first stage took place. Also, the persons to be included in such short list had to satisfy the new 852 3 C.L.R. Demetriades and Others τ. Republic Sawldes J. schemes of service. A strange situation is also created by the same decision of the respondent,.whereas under paragraph (
- b)of its decision the last date for submitting applications was fixed the 23rd October, 1981 from which it may be inferred 5 that theshort list of outstandingcandidates had to beprepared after thelast datefor submittingapplications hadexpired,under paragraph (c)of its decision it fixed the interviews between the 16thand the22nd of October, 1981,thatis, before the last date for submitting applications for such posts had expired. 10 I fully agree with the contention of counsel for applicants, that in theabsence of any record in therelevant minutes of the meetings of the respondent Committee as to the performance and the special view formed about each candidate,it could not be possible for its members tohave clearly inmindwhen taking 15 the sub judice decision on 2.11.1981, the views formed about candidates interviewed 18 monthsearlier as compared with the views formed from theinterviews of candidates whom they saw only a few days before taking theirfinal decision. It has been held by this Court time and again that the absence of any in20 dication in the records of the Educational Service Committee as to the performance of the candidates at the interviews and their marking (if such system was adopted)touches the validity ofa decision. Thus,inthecase ofKarageorghisv. TheRepublic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 435, in adopting what was said in Bagdades v. 25 The CentralBank
(1973)3 C.L.R., 417; Hadjianastassiou J., stated the following at page 460:"But, in my,opinion, the sub judice decision is invalid also for the following reasons:30 35 40 Among other matters taken intoconsideration inpeferring interested party Papaleontiou was 'the personal eva luation formed by the members of the Commissionabout each one of the candidatesfrom theirpersonalinterviews'. In the absence of any record in the relevantminutesas to the result of the interview and in the absenceof any indication as to whether a system of marking was adopted (see the Bagdades case supra, at p. 428) so as to enable thisCourtto examinehow and why it was reasonablyopen to the respondent to act upon the results of the personal interview,notwithstandingthe substantiallygreaterseniority of the applicant,suchageneralstatementin theminutes 853 Sarvldes J. Demetriades and Others v. Republic
(1983)of the respondent, as aforesaid, cannot have the effect of rendering the promotion of interested party Papaleontiou one which can be treated as having been properly decided upon in the exercise of the particular powers of the respondent." The same dictum in Bagdades and Karageorghts cases has alsobeenadoptedinthecaseofGeorghiouv.TheRepublic
(1983)3 C.L.R., 17, at p. 34, where I said the following:"The last factor to consider is the performance at the interviews which was one of the factors taken into con- 10 sideration. Nothing appears in the minutes about the results of the interviews of the candidates and no record has been produced as to the performance and marking (if such system was adopted) of the candidates at the interview. InBagdadesv. The CentralBank
(1973)3C.L.R. 15 417,the Court indealingwithsuchmatter,hadthisto say: 'However, in the absence of any cogent reasons given in the minutes regarding what were actually the resultsof the interviews (whether a record waskept and the system of marking was adopted) as well as what 20 were the other relevant factors which the Committee said they took into consideration, and the reason why theydisregarded the greater seniority of the applicant, I have reached the view that the respondent had exercised their discretionary powers in a defective 25 manner because itwasnot reasonably open tothem to reach such a conclusion*, (per Hadjianastassiou, J. at p. 428)." Moreover, in the present case, in addition to the absence of any record as to the performance of candidates, especially in 30 viewofthefactthatbetweentheinterviewsofthefirst groupand the second group an interval of more than 17months elapsed, which by itself is sufficient to nullify the sub judice decision, there are additional factors which indicate some irregularity in the whole procedure. Some of such factors are: 35 (
- a)When the Committee was interviewing candidates, it was considering that 54 posts had to be filled and its mind was directed all along to that fact, whereas, on the date when the 854 5 3 C.L.R. Demetriades and Others v. Republic Sawldes J. sub judice decision was formally taken, they promoted 76can didates as two days earlier they were authorised to fill an addi tional number of 22 posts. (b)Thoughtheinterviews of thesecondstagewhich, as 1have 5 already mentioned, took place more than 17 months from the previous ones, and new criteria had been introduced and new schemes of service came into operation in the meantime, the respondent Committee, in the absence of any record about the performance of candidates at the first interview, did not con10 sider it necessary to interview again at least those of the pre viously interviewed candidates who satisfied thecriteria andthe new schemes so that they could be in a better position to make a comparison with those interviewed at the last stage. (
- c)Another matter which cannot be by-passed without any 15 observation is how in theabsence of any recordjustifying it,the one member of the respondent who was absent at the first stage of the meetings at which 194 candidates were interviewed couldform anopinionabouttheperformance of suchcandidates and compare them with those seen by him at the subsequent 20 meetings. Before concluding on this point, 1 wish to observe that by comparing the list of names of the 76 candidates promoted according to the sub judice decision (exhibit 1) and the list of names published in the official Gazette of the Republic, the 25 nameof oneof thepromoted candidates,namely, Maro Payiasi (P.M.P. 2685) does not appear in those referred to in the sub judice decision as promoted by the respondent and from the various exhibits before me no explanation appears how she came to be promoted. 30 For all the above reasons, Ifind that the sub judice decision must be annulled both for lack of due reasoning and wrong exercise of discretion. Another part of the subjudice decision with which I propose to deal is the last part of such decision, where it is stated that: 35 ! " αποφασίζει _ _ _ _ _ λαμβανομένων εΐόιχάυττοψη της όιοιχητιχής Ιχανότψάς τους ή/κα!των καθώς καί της άριοτηςέντνπώσεοίς πού τά μέλη τής Επιτροπής ίχονν γιά τήν προσωπικότητα τους ". 855 Sawldes J. Demetriades and Others v. Republic
(1983)(" decides __—_ especially taking into account their administrative abilities and/or the as well as the excellentimpression which the members of the Committee have for their personality _"). (The underlining is mine). 5 Therespondenttookespeciallyintoaccounttheadministrative abilities of the interested parties. This was not a valid consideration for the respondent to bear in mind, since such factor is not one of the factors mentioned in section 35, which the Committee may consider in taking its decision. It is an ex- io traneous new factor and as such renders the decision of the respondent bad for wrong exercise of discretion, especially in view of the fact that such administrative ability was not a requirement oftheschemesofserviceandthereisnothingtoshow that any of the candidates had exercised any administrative 15 duties in the past. The other point raised by the same statement in the sub judice decision is with regard to the "excellent impression that the members of the Committee have about their personality ". It isnot mentioned in theminutes of theCommittee 20 how its members acquired such excellent impression about the interested parties. If it wasthrough the interview, they should have stated so as they didearlier on in the subjudice decision, about other factors. Moreover, the word "have" and not "formed", or any other similar word, implies some element of 25 personal knowledge. In this respect it has been held in a number of cases by our Courts to a number of which reference is made in Angelldou v. TheRepublic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 520, at p. 526), that personal knowledge or information possessed by members of a collective organ may be validly taken into con- 30 sideration provided that they merely strengthen the picture appearing in the files; otherwise it should be recorded in detail so as to enablejudicial control. In the case of Angelidou (supra) it has been found at p. 527, that: "In the present instance the relevant passage of the mi- 35 nutes of December 9, 1981 (exhibit 12), which has been already quoted inthisjudgment, issosweepingly andwidely phrased that it renders impossible the exercise at all of anyjudicialcontrol for thepurpose ofascertainingwhether the personal knowledge of members of the Commission 40 856 3 C.L.R. Demetriades and Others v. Republic Sanities J. about thevariouscandidateswasconsistentor inconsistent, and to what extent in each particular case, with the other material, regarding such candidates, which was before the Commission." 5 The cases of Frangos v. TheRepublic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 312, 333-338; Ieridesv. The Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 9, 22-24; and on appeal, Ieridesv. The Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 165, 180-181, are stated in the case of Angelidou (supra) in support of the above principle, together with other Greek authorities. 10 The sub judice decision must, therefore, be annulled with regard to this point also. Thelastpoint Iwishtoexamineisthepoint taken bycounsel for the applicants with regard to the additional qualifications. It is the contention of counsel for the applicants, and it has 15 not been disputed by counsel for the respondents, that certain ofthe interested parties, have no additional qualifications whilst some of the applicants who were not promoted, are possessed with such qualifications and the respondent disregarded these qualifications with no special reasoning. 20 By the schemes of service for the post of A. Headmaster, which have been produced as exhibit 13, a post-graduate course abroad or an additional title in paedagogics or other subjects connected with the administration of schools, are considered as an additional qualification. It has been held 25 in a number of cases by our Courts that when in such cases the additional qualifications are disregarded, special reasons must be given by the respondent (see in this respect,Protopapas v. E.S.C.
(1981)3 C.L.R. 456, at p. 460). However, having regard to the fact that no evidence was 30 adduced as to which of the interested parties arenot possessed with such additional qualification and which of the applicants are so possessed and this because the case was not examined on its merits, and, also, in view of the fact that the subjudice decision has already been annulled on other grounds, I am not 35 going to decide the issue. In viewoftheaboveand asIhavealreadyconcluded that the sub judice decision should be annulled on the above points, 857 Sawldes J. Demetriades and Others v. Republic
(1983)I find it unnecessary to deal with any other points raised by counsel. Thesubjudicedecisioninrespectofthepartieswhosepromotion has been challenged by these recourses is hereby annulled but in the circumstances I make no order for costs. 5 Subjudicedecision annulled. No order as to costs. 858