clr/1984/1984_3_657.pdf

(1984)report was accompanied by a lengthy appendix, detailing the qualifications and experienceofthecandidates;and inaseparate appendix, they listed the qualifications, experience and grading, at the interview, of the 16 candidates that were recommended as suitable for appointment. The remaining candidates were 5 rated as below "Good" at the interview; and as it is evident from their report, the Committee, attached considerable importance totheperformance of thecandidatesat theinterview. The Public Service Commission, after taking into consideration the recommendations of the departmental committee and making 10 an appraisal of the material before them, bearing on the applicants, decidedto restrict selection amongthose recommended by the committee. Applicant, who has not been recommended by the Departmental Committees, challenged by means of a recourse the decision to exclude him from consideration at the 15 final stage of the selection process. The respondent Commission completed the selection by the choice of the 4 interested parties who were among the 16 recommended by the Departmertal Committee. Hence a second recourse by the applicant directed against the substantive decision of the Commission. 20 Counsel for the applicant mainly contended: (a) That by adopting the recommendations of the departmental committee and omitting to call himto an interview, the Public Service Commission abdicated its duties and responsibilities under the Public Service 25 Law,resultingeventually inadefective decisionbecause offailure tocarry outthedutiescastupon them bylaw. (b) That the sub judice decision was invalid on account of failure of the respondent Commission to appreciate correctly the qualifications of applicant that entitled 30 him to preference o\tr the interested parties. Held,

(1)that as a matter of statutory law and proper administrative practice, neither the establishment of an advisory committeenor solicitation ofitsviewsonthesuitability ofcandidates entails abdication of the substantive competence vested 35 in the appointing body or divestiture of itspowers; that the recommendationsofthedepartmentalCommitteearenotbinding on the Public Service Commission (see section 36of Law 33/67) and there was nothing,in the decision of the Commission to 658 :-3iCX.R. ^Christoudiasiv.-Republic suggest they'treated.thdrecommcndations.astbinding; anduhat .they could accept.them afteraiproper rrevicw-.ofithe'material before -.them. :5 Ί0 05 20 ,25 f

(2)That an oral interview is one of <the.accepted methods .of.testing the'knowledge;of candidates; that;the_resiiltsof such a test areof.especial.importance inimaking selections for first entry posts and they are less decisive when a.selection .has.to ibe .made iamong .officers -.ofHong standing rin .the :government service; ,that there was .nothing arbitrary on the ,part .of .the departmental committee in attaching :thetimportance ,they did to the results of:the interview; that ihey were'.'in an .excellent tposition to appreciate the'knowledge,required 'for t a '.successful discharge of the duties of the,post and-rate.candidates-with-that perspective in mind and as:their report and.appendices;attached thereto suggest,«.due regard.was^paid-to-the qualifications and experience ofithe.candidatesjuhatithe.applicant.and.all-the.other ^candidates ,not .recommended, 'did ipoorly *at *the -interview.; rthat-taking into,consideration'the.personal;filestof'thenntcrested ΐ ipaΓties.anduhe^applicant,<as-\vell·as•the .confideJ^tiahreρortslon uhc applicant.it'was.psrfectlyopento.the.departmental committee :to.conclude.as-=they*did,an view^oftthe-sumftotakof -the material •before .-them,lincluding :the qualifications -.of-candidates, ttheir •experience:and results.of the interview.andirecommendithe:interiested.parties in[preference.to.the applicant;;that'the'Public.Service iCommissionmeither abdicated:its:duties:nonexceetlcd;its-authoriity.in accepting^ese recommendations;:accordinglyi.the.recQurses .must ifail. .'Applications dismissed. iCases .referred to: 30 .Michael <.an'd /Anotherw. iPublic;Service -Commission i(1.982) Β S C L : R . >726tat |pp. 7740-741; •Papa'dopjullos^. Weptiblic

(1983)'3C?L:R. M423; IThd/assinos .v. 'Republic ;

(1973)3 C.L:R. 386; IMarathevtou w. Republic {

(1982):-3*QL:R. 51088. 35 ;Recourses. ;Recourses,against4he:decision-of-.the.respondents Ίο-exclude iapplicantifor .consideration *at .the ;final :stage;dfithe.selection iprocess <and;against ;the .promotioncdf=thciinterested ^parties*to i659 Christoudias v. Republic

(1984)the post of Co-ordination Officer in the Planning Bureau in preference and instead of the applicant. C. Loizoit, for the applicant. A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. In May 1982, the process was initiated for filling four posts of Co-ordination Officer in the Planning Bureau. The Public ServiceCommission directed on 31.5.1982 the advertisement of the post in the Official 10 Gazette in view of its status, a first entry post. One hundred and fifty nine persons applied for appointment. Their applications were forwarded to a departmental committee, set up under s. 36 of the Public Service Law—33/67 and, Regulations made under the Law. Their applications were submitted to 15 this committee for consideration and evaluation. In addition, they made available to the committee confidential reports on eight of the applicants who were in the government service (see, letter of 15 September, 1982). The departmental committee was composed of senior officers 20 of the Department, meeting under the chairmanship of Mr. Aristidou, the Director of the Bureau. Because of its composition, it can be confidently assumed that the committee was in anexcellent position toassessthe requirements for a successful discharge of the duties of Co-ordination Officer and, make after 25 proper enquiry, a forecast of the likelihood of the different candidates discharging with success the duties of the post. The applicants were invited, to oral interviews with a view to testing their knowledge and abilities. Of the 159 candidates, 50 dropped out of the competition, either by withdrawing their appli- 30 nations or by not turning up at the interviews. After completing their deliberations, the departmental committee submitted to the Public Service Commission its repoit for consideration. The report was accompanied, by a lengthy ippendix, detailing the qualifications and experience of the 35 ;andidates. Ina separateappendix,theylistedthe qualifications, experience and grading, at the interview, of the 16 candidates that were recommended as suitable for appointment. The remaining candidates were rated as below "Good" at the inter660 5 3 C L.R. Christoudias v. Republic Pikis J. view. They attached, as itisevident from their report, considerable importance to the performance of the candidates at the interview. Before making their recommendations, they had, as it appears from their report dated 11.9.1982, regard to the 5 sum total of the material evidencing knowledge and capabilities of applicants, including, in the case of those in the government service, their confidential reports for the two years preceding thematerial period, notably 1980and

1. The Public Service Commission, after taking stock of the recommendations of the 10 departmental committeeand making anappraisal of the material before them, bearing on the applicants, decided to restrict selection among those recommended by the committee (see, Minutes of the Meeting of 28.12.1982). Applicant mounted a challenge to the decision to exclude him for consideration at thefinalstage 15 of the selection ptocess, by filing Recourse No. 158/
2. The selection was completed on 18.1.1983 by the choice of the four interested parties asthe candidates best qualified for the post. They were among the 16 recommended by the departmentalcommittee. Asecond recoursewasfiledbytheapplicant, 20 directed against the substantive decision of the Public Service Commission, joining the four appointees as interested parties. Although the decision to exclude the applicant from final consideration is in itself justiciable, because of its definitive consequences upon the candidature of the applicant for appoint25 ment*, notwithstanding its inconclusiveness as to who should be appointed, it would be profitless to examine the two applications separately. In any event, review of the final stage of a composite administrative act puts in issue every act antecedent thereto with the corollary that the legality and propriety of 30 every stage comes under scrutiny. The basic submission propounded on behalf of the applicant is that by adopting the recommendations of the departmental committee and omitting to call him to an interview, the Public Service Commission abdicated its duties and responsibilities 35 under the Public Service Law, resultingeventually in a defective decision because of failure to carry out the duties cast upon them by law. Reliance in support of his submission wasplaced • (See Papadopoulos v. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1423». 661 Pikis J. Christoudias v. Republic

(1984);>n the decision of A. .Loizou, J., in Michael And Another v. Public Service Commission

(1982)3 C.L.R. 726, 740-

1. I ail to see in what way the above decision'supports the viewDoint put forward by counsel for the applicant. -All that "was iecided in that case, so-far as relevant to the case in-hand, is 5 :hat the Regulations governing the functioning of departmental Doards should not be construed as taking away the competence ind final responsibility of the-Public Service Commission to ;elect the candidates best suited for the'post. The essence of :he case for the'applicant'is that s.36 and the Regulations made 10 purporting to give effect to-it, must bcread and construed subect to - s,5 of the law-entrusting the manning of.public admitistrationin the hands of the Public Service Commission. Section'36 should not be construed as authorising the Commission toactwithout first hand knowledgeon therecommendations i5 >f any other body. Such a course would entail abdication of he duty cast on the respondents by the law, so it was argued. The second complaint'touching on'the propriety of the deci;ion concerns'the sufficiency of the enquiry into the suitability >f'the candidates. This submission again turns on'the acceptmce by the Public Service Commission of the recommendations )f the departmental committe. -Finally/the decision is contested isinvalid on account of failure to appreciate correctly the qualiications of applicant that entitled him to preference over the nterested parties. Counsellor the respondents-asserted'the-validity of the-final lecision-and'the propriety>of-everystepprecedent theieto. The ^jblic-Service-Gornmissionwas perfectly entitled to rely, after iroper sifting of thcmatcrial-before them, on the recommendtions of the departmental committee. Moreover, the recom- 30 nendations rested, as may be inferred from the report of the epartmental committee, on a proper appreciation of the'facts •efore them. Counsel refuted-every suggestion that the Public ervice Commission abused its .powers or that .it transcended le outer limits of its ^discretion. 35 •lecommendations of'.DepartmentalCommittees—Powers of the 'tiblic "Service 'Commission in relation thereto: Reading together sections 5 and 36 of the Public Service Law -33/67, [fail to*see anysrealor apparent conflict betwecn'their '662 20 25 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Christoudias v. Republic Plkis J. provisions; on the contrary they areperfectly reconcilable. The competence of the Public Service Commission on appointments, promotions and in fact its authority to regulate the status of officers in the Public Service, is beyond doubt. The exercise of the powers deriving from this competence is, by the expressprovisions of s.5 of the law,made dependent on observance of other provisions of the Public Service Law including, of course, those of s.
2. So, as a matter of construction, there isnoincongruity between theprovisionsofthe twosections of the law. Section 36provides for theestablishment of departmental committees to aid the Public Service Commission in the discharge of the duties and functions assigned to it by s.
3. A comparison of the provisions of s.36(l) with those of s.35

(6), reveals that unlike recommendations under s,36(l), those of an advisory committee set up under s.35(l), are binding upon the Public ServiceCommission. Reference to s.35(l) is instructive in this sense. It was within the contemplation of the legislature to establish preliminary mechanisms for the evaluation ofcandidates as a means offillingthe gapfrom lack of expertise on the part of members of the Public Service Commission in detailed branches of knowledge. And in that way utilise accumulated knowledge of the permanent establishment in the selection process. As A. Loizou, J. pointed out in Thalassinos v. TheRepublic 25

(1973)3 C.L.R. 386, s.36 gives statutory effect to a perfectly acceptable practice followed in other countries, such as Greece, as a proper expedient for the exercise of the power to appoint. Thus, as a matter of statutory law and proper administrative practice, neither the establishment of an advisory committee 30 nor solicitation of its views on the suitability of candidates entails abdication of the substantive competence vested in the appointing body or divestiture of its powers (see,Conclusions from the Jurisprudence of Greek Council of State 1929-59, pp. 193-194). 35 Under section 36 the recommendations of the departmental committee are not binding on the Public Service Commission. There is nothing in the decision of the Public Service Commission to suggest they treated the recommendations as binding, On the other hand, they could accept them after proper review 40 of the material before them; and the question arises whether 663 Pikis J. Chrctoudias τ. Republic

(1984)in this case they erred in accepting them. The suggestion is they ought not to have accepted those recommendations in the case of the applicant, for the reason that thedepartmental committee wrongly excluded him from the list of recommended candidates. It becomes, therefore, necessary to examine the 5 manner in which the departmental committee discharged these functions, as elicited from thematerial before the Public Service Commission. Itwas afirstentry post,consequently,athorough procedure should be devised for testing the knowledge of the candidates. Equality before the Administration, constitu- 10 tionally entrenched by the provisions of Article 28.1 of the Constitution, requires that in the case of first entry posts, no presumption should be made in favour of those already in the government service. Their service record is relevant as a pointer to their experience and capabilities, in much the same 15 way as the service record of candidates with experience outside the government service should be evaluated. The interested parties were in the government service on a temporary basis. No confidential reports were submitted on their performance. Thus, no comparison could be made in this respect with the 20 applicant who was permanently in the government service. Thepersonalfileand confidential reports of the applicant which were exhibits 2(a)and2(b)inRecourse 145/83,wereduly secured and considered for the purpose of disposing of this recourse. An oral interview is one of the accepted methods of testing 25 the knowledge of candidates (see, inter alia, Marathevtou And Others v. Republic

(1982)3 C.L.R. 1088). The results of such a test are of especial importance in making selections for first entry posts. They are less decisive when a selection has to be madeamong officers of long standing inthegovernment service. 30 In their case the results of an inteiview must be evaluated to­ gether with theservice record of theparties inorder to asceitain their suitability for appointment (see, Papadopoulos v. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1423). There was nothing arbitrary on the part of the departmental 35 committee in attaching the importance they did to the results of the interview. They were in an excellent position to appre­ ciate the knowledge required for a successful discharge of the duties of the post and rate candidates with that perspective in mind. As their report and appendices attachedtheretosuggest, 40 664 3 C.L.R. Christoudias v. Republic Pikis J. due regard was paid to the qualifications and experience of the candidates. The applicant and all the other candidates not recommended, did poorly at the interview. They were rated as being below "Good". 5 Istudiedwithverygreatcarethepersonalfilesoftheinterested parties and the applicant, as well as the confidential reports on the applicant. It was perfectly open to the departmental committee to conclude, as they did, in view of the sum total of the material before them, including the quahfications of 10 candidates, their experience and results of the interview and recommend the interested parties inpreference totheapplicant. The Public Service Commissionneither abdicated itsdutiesnor exceeded its authority in accepting these recommendations. It was perfectly open to them to do so and nothing produced 15 before me suggests otherwise. Intheresult,therecourseisdismissed. Lettherebenoorder as to costs. Recourse dismissedwith no order as tocosts. 665