1986 November 20 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., SAVVIDCS, LORIS, STYLIANIDES, KoURRIS, JJ.] NIKI STYLIANOU, Appellant I Applicant), ν THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS. THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Respond?'/' (Revis'Onal Jurisdiction Appeal No. 580) 5 10 15 20 Public Officers—Promotions—Sentoiits of ten, fi\e and Join years—Merit (on the basis of the last two confidentic! reports) and qualifications more or less equal—Senior-'i disregarded by reason of the recommendations of the ιepresentath e of the Head of the Department—Sm h recommendations not justified bx the material in the file— ^dequeue reasons ought to have been given for oxerlookinv such seniority—Sub judice decision not reasonably open to respondent Commission This is an appeal from the first instance judgment oi a Judge of this Court, whereby the appellant's recourse against the promotions of eleven officer to the post of Labour Officer. 1st Grade was dismissed. In the course of this appeal the appellant discontinued the procecdhwas against seven of the eleven interested parties. The appellant was equal in qualifications with tIkremaining four interested parties On the basis of the l.isi two confidential reports she was. uKu. equal in merit it not superior, to the said in'ciested partie> Moreover tht appellant was senior by ten years to two of the interested parties, five years to interested pait) Aig\ run and foui years to interested party Economou The ieason given b\ 2661
(1986)Stylianou v. Republic the respondent Commission for not preferring the appellant to anyone of the interested party was that the appellant had not been recommended for promotion, whilst the interested parties had been so recommended by the representative of the Head of the Department 5 Held, allowing the appeal:
(1)The recommendations were not justified by the material in the record before the Commission.
(2)The Commission ought to have given adequate reasons for overlooking the by far greater seniority of the 10 appellant.
(3)In the circumstances the sub judice decision was not reasonably open to the Commission. To hold otherwise would amount to laying down that the representative of the Head of the Department was empowered to select those 15 to be appointed by the Commission. Appeal allowed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: Parteltides v. The Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 480. 20 Appeal. Appeal against the judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Malachtos, J.) given on the 22nd March, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 260/83)* whereby appellant's recourse against the promotion of the interested 25 parties to the post of Labour Officer 1st Grade in the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance was dismissed. A. S. Angelides, for the appellants. G. Erotocritou, (Mrs.), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vidt. * Reported in
(1986)3 C.L.R. 579 2662 30 3 C.t-.rt. 5 StyHanou v. Republic TRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ read the following judgment of the Court. This is an appeal against the first instance judgment of a Judge of th's Court by means of which there was dis missed the recource of the appellant aga:nst eleven promotions to the post of Labour Officer, 1st Grade, to which the appellant, though she was a candidate for promotion. was not promoted. The sub judice promotions were effected by the respondent Commission on the 28th February
- as from the 1st March
- 10 In the course of this appeal the appellant discontinued the present proceedings in so far as seven of those promoted are concerned; and it should be observed that counsel for the appellant quite rightly advised the appellant to adopt such a course. 15 As regards the remaining four appointees, A. Argyrou, M. Gregoriou, A. Mits:des and S. Economou (to be re ferred to hereinafter as the "interested parties") counsel for the appellant and for the respondent seem to be in agree ment that the qualifications of the interested parties were more or less the same as of those of the appellant. 20 25 30 35 On the basis of the conf;dent:al reports for the years 1981 and 1982 the appellant appears to be at least equal in merit, to the interested parties, if not superior to all of them. The appellant was, also, by ten years senior to interested parties Mitsides and Gregoriou, four years senior to interested party Economou and five years senior to in terested party Argyrou. The reason wh*ch was given by the respondent Com mission for not preferring for promotion the appellant to these four interested parties was that the Commission did not find any reason justifying the selection for promot ; on of the appellant instead of the interested parties who had been recommended for promotion by Mr. A. Protopapas, who attended the meetings of the Comnrssion as representative of the Director-General of the Ministry of La2663 Trientafyllides P. Stylianou v. Republic
(1986)bour and Social Insurance; and the appellant had not been recommended by him for promotion. The Commission had before it all the relevant material, including the confidential reports for, and the personal files of, the candidates, as well as details of the careers in the 5 public service of the candidates, and it should have concluded that the recommendations of Mr. Protopapas to promote the interested parties instead of the appellant were not justified by the material-' on record before the Commission, since their qualifications were the same as those 10 of the appellant, who was, to say the least, more or less equal in merit to the interested parties and who, also, was strikingly senior to all four of them. Actually, the Commission ought to have considered whether, notwithstanding the recommendations of Mr. Pro- 15 topapas, it was justified, in circumstances such as those of the present case, where qualifications and merits were more or less equal, to decide to overlook the by far greater seniority of the appellant and the Commission ought to have g;ven adequate reasons for having done so (see, inter alia, 20 ParteWdes v. The Republic,
(1969)3 C.L.R. 480). We have no difficulty in concluding, in the light also of the very fair approach to this case by counsel for the respondent, which we do appreciate, that this is a case in which on the totality of the material before the Commission 25 there was no other way open to it but to prefer for promotion the appellant to any one of the four interested parties, notwithstanding the recommendations in their favour of Mr. Protopapas. Had we found, in the circumstances of this case, that it 30 was reasonably open, in a case of this nature, to the Commission to prefer the intereted parties instead of the appellant, merely on the strength of the recommendations of Mr. Protopapas, this would have amounted to laying down that Mr. Protopapas was empowered to select for promo- 35 tion those to be appointed by the respondent Commission. 2664 3 C.L.R. Stylianou v. Republic Triantafyllides P. We, consequently, have to annul the promotions of the four interested parties, namely A. Argyrou, M. Gregoriou, A. Mitsides and S. Economou. 5 This appeal is, therefore, allowed; but with no order as to its costs. Appeal allowed. No order as to costs. 2665