3C.L.R. 1987June 27 [TRIANTAFYLUDES, P.) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION MAROULLAMYLONAANDOTHERS, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 37/86). ^ 10 15 20 25 Public Officers — Promotions — Interviews — Croup interviews — Save in exceptional casespersonal interviews have to be conducted with one candidateatatime— Thisismore thanevernecessarywhenthe personality of the candidatesis a material factor — In this casethe method of group interviews wasrendered more unsafebecausetheevaluation wasmadeafter a whole month from thelastgroup interview and hair's breadth distinction, had to bemade —Aspersonality wasamateria!consideration the defective mannerin which theinterviews wereheld isaground of annulment. By means of this recourse the applicants challenge the validity of the promotions of the interested parties to the post of Clerical Officer in the GeneralClericalStaff. Allapplicants,exceptapplicant A.Eliades,andtheinterestedparties,were among those recommended by the Departmental Committee. The respondent Commission decided to require the candidates who, in accordancewiththereportoftheDepartmentalCommitteeweremoreorless equalinmerit,qualificationsandseniority,tositforawrittenexamination. Some time thereafter the Commission decided not to hold such an examination, butto proceedwithinterviews,whichwould,initsopinion,be very usefulbecause dueto thedutiesofthepostinquestion,the personality ofcandidateswasamaterialconsideration. The interviews were held on 30.9.85, 3.10.85, 4.10.85, 7.10.85 and 8.11.85. Atitslastmeeting,when only one candidatewasinterviewed (such candidate could not appear earlier because of ill health) the Commission evaluatedthe performance of the candidatesas«mediocre»,«good»,«nearty verygood»,«verygood»and«veryverygood». 1015 Mytona&Othersv. Republic
(1987)Itmustbenotedthatwiththeexceptionoftheinterviewof8.11.85,allother interviewswere group interviewsof four orthree. Held,annullingthesubjudice decision: (1}Saveinexceptionalcases,such aswherethephysiqueofthecandidatesisa materialconsideration, personal interviewsshould be conducted withonecandidate atatime.Theinterviews should notbe turned intopersonalitycontests.When personality is, asinthis case, a material factor, it is more than ever necessary to interview the candidates one byone.inordertomakeassafe aspossibletheevaluationof their personality. 5
(2)In this case the evaluation of the personality of the candidates was 10 rendered evenmoreunsafe,becauseitwasmadeawholemonthafterthelast group interviewand hair's breadthdistinctions,asthatbetween «nearlyvery good»and «verygood»had tobemade.
(3)Asinthiscasepersonalitywasa materialfactor thedefective mannerin a material particular in which the interviews were held is a ground of annulment. 15 Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: TheRepublic v. Zachahades
(1986)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. 20 Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interested parties to the post of Clerical Officer in the General ClericalStaff inpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. AS.Angelides, fortheapplicants. P.HadjiDemetriou, fortherespondent. 25 Cur. adv. vult TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.readthefollowingjudgment.Bymeans of the present recourse the applicants are challenging fifteen promotionstothepostofClericalOfficer, intheGeneralClerical Staff,asfrom 15November
- Asthepost ofClericalOfficer isapromotion postthe relevant processfortheconstitutingofaDepartmentalCommitteewasset upinmotion. 1016 30 3 C.L.R. Nylona &Othersv.Republic Triantafyllldes P. The Departmental Committee recommended for promotion sixty, out of sixty-three Clerks, 1st Grade of the General Clencal Staff, who possessed thequalifications required forpromotion by therelevantschemeofservice Amongthoserecommended were 5 the fifteen candidates who were eventually promoted and whose promotions arebeing challenged by thisrecourse -tobe referred to hereinafter as the «interested parties» - and all the applicants except applicant A Ehades The Departmental Committee stated in its report that most of 10 the recommended candidates were more or less equal in ment, qualifications and senionty and proceeded to observe that the PublicServiceCommission oughttoconsiderwhether, under the circumstances, the candidates should be interviewed by the Commission 15 At its meeting on 22 July 1985 the respondent Public Service Commission decided that allthe sixty-three candidates who were qualified for promotion were to be required to sit for a wntten examination On23August 1985therespondent Commissiondecided notto 20 holdawnttenexaminationbecauseofcertainproblemswhichhad ansen and because, in view of the nature of the duties of the particular post, the personality of the candidates was a matenal consideration which had tobe taken senously intoaccountandin this respect interviews of the candidates would be very useful It 25 was, consequently, decided to interview all the sixty-three candidates The interviews took place on 30 September 1985, 3 October 1985, 4 October 1985, 7 October 1985 and 8 November 1985 On the last occasion the Commission interviewed only one 30 candidate who had been unable, because of health reasons, to appearforaninterviewon7October 1985 Onalltheearlierdates the candidates were interviewed in groups, that is they were divided into fourteen groups of four candidates each and two groups of three candidates each, and in this way sixteen 35 candidates were interviewed on each of the first three occasions and fourteen candidates onthefourth occasion, the candidatesin each group beinginterviewed simultaneously. On 8November 1985theDirectorofthe PublicAdministration and Personnel Service, who had been present during all the 1017 Triantafyfflde· P. Mylona& Othersv. Republic
(1987)interviews, expressed to the respondent Commission his own views about the performance of thecandidates at theinterviews and then the Commission made its own evaluation of such performance inthelight, also, of theviewsexpressedby thesaid Director; it is to be noted that in this respect the Commission 5 graded the performance of the candidates by using the terms «mediocre», «good», «nearly very good», «verygood»and«very very good» («μέτριος», «καλός», «σχεδόν πολύ καλός», «πολύ καλός», «πάρα πολύκαλός»). Eventually, on the same date, the Commission, after having 10 token into' account all material considerations, including the impressions from theinterviews of the candidates,proceeded to promotethefifteen interestedparties. Itisplainly obvious thattherespondentCommissiontreatedall alongthepersonality of thecandidatesasamaterialfactor, which 15 was to be evaluated during the interviews. Itfollows, therefore, thatif theinterviews, which are,indeed, a process helping inthe evaluation ofthecandidatesmainlyfromthepointofviewofmerit (see 77ieRepublicv.Zachariades,
(1986)3C.L.R.852,856)were conducted in a defective mannerina material respect, thenthis 20 wouldbeareasonfortheannulmentofthesubjudicepromotions. Inmyopinion,saveinexceptionalcases,suchasthoseinwhich thefactortobeascertained isthephysique ofcandidatesdestined for posts in relation to which the factor of physique is themain materialconsideration,personalinterviewshave tobe conducted 25 with onecandidateata timeandshould notbeturnedintoeither group personality contests or a substitute for oral examinations. Moreover,whenthepersonality ofthecandidatesisconsideredto be a materialfactor, aswas thesituationonthepresentoccasion, itismorethanevernecessary tointerview candidatesonebyone 30 in order to make an as safe as possible evaluation of the personality of eachoneofthem. In my opinion the method of group interviews which was adopted by the respondent Commission in the present instance was an unsafe mode of ascertaining the personality of each 35 individual candidate and it was rendered even more unsafe because ofthefactthattheevaluationoftheperformanceofsixtythree candidates who were interviewed in groups was made a wholemonthlaterand hair'sbreadthdistinctionshad tobemade such as that between the terms «nearly very good» and «very 40 good». 1018
(1987)Mylcma&Othersv.Republic TrlanUfftUdoeP. Inthelightofalltheforegoing Ifindthattherehasoccunedon this occasion a material irregularity rendering defective the exercise of the relevant discretionary powers of the respondent Commission and, therefore, the sub judice promotions of the 5 interestedpartieshavetobeannulled,withoutitbeingnecessary to pronouce regarding other groundsof annulment which were putforwardbycounselfortheapplicants. In the result this recourse succeeds, but there will not be an orderastoitscosts. 10 Subjudice decisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1019