3C.L.R 1987July 24 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, Ρ , DEMETRIADES, LORIS, STYUANIDES, KOURR1S. JJ ] THE REPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH PUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Appellant, ν MICHAEL PANAYIOTIDES, Respondent (RevisionalJunsdichon Appeal No 589) 5 10 15 PubbcOfficers—Appointments/Promotions—Interviews—Group interviews— Savemexceptional casespersonalinterviewhavetobeconducted withone candidateatatime—inthiscaseevenifitmightbesaidthatno undueweight was attached to theperformance of thecandidatesat theinterview,the method used (groupinterview)wasfraughtwiththenskof unjustandunsafe Bndings, rendenng defective theexercise ofthe discretionary power ofthe Commission Pubbc Officers— Appointments/Promotions —Pubbc Service Commission — Whether empowered tohold interviews~ Notwithstandingabsence ofan express statutoryprovision, there hasbeen established along practice to interviewcandidates,whichhasbeenapproved bythecaselawasamethod, though notexclusive, of helping intheevaluationof candidates fromthe point ofview ofment andtoacertainextentqualifications Public Officers— Appointments/Promotions — Interviews,periormance at— Undueweight — Ground ofannulment— Buifacts ofaparticularcasemay justifyattachmentofgreatimportancetosuchperformance Public Officers — Appointments/Promotions — Interviews,performance at— Head of Department evaluatingsuch performance —Such evaluationis a factor, butnotanindependent cnteriontobemadepartofthefinalreasoning 20 This is anappeal from ajudgmentofaJudge ofthis Court,whereby the appointmentofinterestedparlyKetomstothepostof-Registrar(Orthopaedic) intheMedicalandPublicHealthServiceswasannulledonthegroundthatthe appellant Commission attached undue weight on the performance of candidatesatthe interviews 1081 Republicv.Panaylotkles
(1987)The 7 candidates for the post were interviewed by the Commission on 23.7.83bywayof a «groupinterview». AttheCommission'snextmeeting,whichwasheldon2.8.83,theDirector of Medical and Public Health Services, who was present at the interview, evaluated the performance of the candidates thereat, describing the respondent (applicant in the recourse) as «nearly very good» and the interested partyas«veryverygood». 5 Then the Commission, bearing in mind the Director's said evaluation, evaluated, also, the performance of the candidates, and described the respondent «as nearly very good» and the interested party as «very very 1 0 good». As it appears from the reasoning of the subjudice decision respondent's slight superiority in merit and seniority were neutralised by the impression made bythe interested partyattheinterview. Itmustbe noted thatone oftheissuesraised inthecourse ofthehearingof 15 thisappeal iswhether the Commission isempowered to hold interviewsof candidates. Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1)Long before the enactment of the Public Service Law 33/67 it has been accepted that the Public Service Commission or other appointing authority could interview candidates in the process of evaluating their suitability. The only direct reference to interviews that can be found inLaw 33/67 isinsection 35
(6)(Interviewsof candidatesfor specialized postsbyAdvisoryCommittees).From comparison of section 35
(6)and section 35
(4)it is clear that interviews should not be confused withoralorwritten examinations. 20 25 Notwithstanding the absence of an express statutory provision, apractice has been established to interview candidates for the purpose of evaluating their suitability and thispractice hasreceived repeatedly express recognition by the case law as a course, which is open to the Commission or other appointing body, but which the Commission is not bound to adopt in all 3 0 cases
(2)Theperformance ofthecandidatesattheinterview«isaprocesshelping tnthe evaluation of candidates, mainly from the point of viewof merit and, also, to a certain extent of qualifications as well» (Zachanades v. Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 852 adopted).
(3)ThoughthisCourthasrepeatedlyannulledpromotionsorappointments on the ground that undue weight was given at the performance of the candidates at the Interview, the fact that great importance was attached to such performance is not, necessarily, a ground of annulment, because the adoption of such a course may be warranted by the circumstances of the 4 0 particularcase. 1082 35 3C.LR. Bepabticv. Pan*yiotldes
(4)The adoption of thecourseofinterviewingallsevencandidatesfor the threevacantpoststogether inagroup wasunsafe and unsatisfactory. 5 10 15 Save inexceptionalcircumstances, inwhich there isto be ascertained, as the factor relevant to the duties of the post in question, the physique or appearance of candidates, thereshould notbe conducted groupinterviews, because interviewscannot beturned inthiswaytopersonality contests.
(5)ThisCourtfailstoseehowafter interviewing7candidatesinagroupthe Commission could safely described a candidate as «nearly very good» and anotheras«verygood»andonthebasisofsuchadistinctionfindthattheslight supenority in merit and seniority of the one was neutralised by the performance ofthe otheratthe interview.
(6)The evaluationoftheperformance ofthecandidatesbytheHeadofthe Department was only a factor to be used by the Commission in making its evaluation and not an independent criterion tobe relied upon aspart of the reasoningofthesubjudice decision.
(7)Even ifitmightbe saidthat the Commission did notattach any undue weight tothe performance ofthecandidates, neverthelessthe mannerof the interviewwasfraught withtheriskof unsafe and unjust findings, ina manner rendering defective theexerciseof therelevant discretionary powers. Appeal dismissed. Orderof £100.-issuedbytrialJudge infavourofrespondent set aside.No orderastothe costsofeitherthefirst instancetrialorthe appeal. 20 25 Casesreferredto: Panayiotidesv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 525; Petsasv.TheRepublic,3 R.S.C.C.60; Neophytou v. TheRepublic, 1964C.L.R.280; 30 Kyriacouv*TheCyprusBroadcastingCorporation
(1965)3C.L.R.482; Frangoulides (No.l) v.TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R.20; Christofiv.TheRepublic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 615; Pieridesv.TheRepublic
(1971)3C.L.R.233; Panayiotouv. TheRepublic
(1968)3 C.L.R.639. 35 Triantafyllldesv.TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R. 235; Constantinidesv.TheRepublic
(1973)3C.L.R.508; 1083 Republicv.Panaytotides
(1987)Myrtiotisν TheRepublic
(1975)3C LR 58, and onappeal
(1975)3 C L R 484, Duncan ν TheRepublic
(1977)3 C L R 153, Chnstodoulou ν The Cyprus Telecommunications Authonty
(1978)3CLR61, 5 Panayidouv TheRepublic
(1978)3 C L R 144, Stybanouv ThePublicService Commission
(1980)3 CLR 11, Sawav TheRepublic
(1980)3 C L R 675, Marathevtouv TheRepublic
(1982)3 C L R 1088, Piendouv TheRepublic
(1983)3 C L R 1, 10 Smymiosv TheRepublic
(1983)3 C LR 124, Makndesv TheRepublic
(1983)3 CLR 622, Mybdesv TheRepublic
(1983)3 C L R 1096, Papadopoullos ν Republic
(1983)3 CLR 1423, 77ieKepuW/cν Pe/nc/es
(1984)3 CLR 378, 15 Chnstoudias ν TheRepublic
(1984)3 CL R 657, Loizidou-Papaphoti ν TheEducational Service Commission
(1984)3 C L R 933, Kynacou ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 CLR 830, loannides ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 CLR 2450, 20 Nicolaidou ν ThePublicService Commission
(1985)3 CLR 2492, Oendesv TheRepublic {1985) 3 CL R 2594, Yenakntouv TheRepublic
(1985)3 C L R 2731, Stephanouv TheRepublic
(1986)3 CLR 779, . Kalosv TheRepublic
(1986)3 c L R 942, 77ieRepublic ν Zachanades
(1986)3 CLR 852, 77ieRepublic ν Marathefbs
(1986)3 CLR 1407 Appeal. AppealagainstthejudgmentofaJudgeoftheSupremeCourtof Cyprus (Sawides, J ) given on the3rd April, 1986 (Revisional 30 1084 25 3 C.L.R. Republicv. Panayiotides Jurisdiction Case No. 482/84*) whereby the decision of the appellant to promote the interested party to the post of Registrar (Orthopaedic)intheMedicalServiceswasannulled. 5 N. Charalamdous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the appellant. G.TriantafyHides,forthe respondent. K.Talarides,fortheinterested party. Cur.adv.vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment of the 10 Court. The appellant Public Service Commission, which was the respondentinthefirstinstanceproceedingsbeforethelearnedtrial Judge,hasappealed againsthisjudgmentinrecourse No.482/84, underArticle 146oftheConstitution,bymeansofwhichtherewas annulledtheappointmentofinterestedpartyN.Ketonistothepost 15 of Registrar (Orthopaedic) in the Medical and Public Health Services,asfrom 15August1983. Thesaidrecoursewasfiled bytherespondenttothisappealwho wastheapplicantinthatrecourse. ThetrialJudgeannulledtheappointment oftheinterestedparty 20 on the ground that the Public Service Commission had given undue weighttotheperformance ofthecandidatesfor thepostin questionwhentheywereinterviewedbyit. The judgment of the trialJudge isreported as Panayiotides v. The Republic,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 525, and there are to be found 25 therein the salient facts of this case which, consequently, do not havetoberepeated inthepresentjudgment. Inthe course of the arguments in thisappeal there was raised, first, the issue of whether the respondent Public Service Commission was empowered to conduct interviews of the 30 candidates concerned in relation tothe making of the subjudice appointment. Long before the enactment of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67), it appears to have been accepted that the Public Service Commission, or other appointing authorities, were 35 entitled to interview candidates inthe process of evaluating their •Reportedin
(1986)3CLR. 525. 1085 TriantafpDMeaP. ••»•HlfT.Pinaylirtd— <1*·Τ> suitability, even though there did not exist at the time a specific statutory provision providing for such interviews; and, actually, interviews of candidates became such a regular feature that in Petsas v. The Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 60, 63, it was held that «the mere fact that the Commission did not call the candidates for an 5 interview doesnotinvolve awrong exercise of discretion». The Petsas case was followed in Neophytou v. The Republic, 1964 C.L.R. 280, 296, Kyriacou v. The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 482, 513, Frangoulides (No. 1)v. The Republic,
(1966)3 C.L.R. 20, 27, Christofiv. The Republic, 10
(1967)3 C.L.R. 615, 620 and Pierides v. The Republic,
(1971)3 CJ-.R. 233,244. In Panayiotouv. The Republic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 639, 642, the following were stated: «As the persons to be appointed were to work as nursing 15 staff, and especially atthe Psychiatric Institution,itis obvious that their personalities were importantfactors to be weighed by the RespondentCommission; nurses dealing with patients have to possess a suitable personality in many material respects. So, rightly, in my view, the Commission paid due 20 regard to the evaluation of the candidates made through the interview and was, toa certain extent, guided accordingly in reaching its decision; in the present instance Iwould say that the results of the interviews were more important than they would have ordinarily been.» 25 The Panayiotou case related to appointments made immediately after the enactmentofLaw 33/67. Theredoes notappear toexistinLaw 33/67 aspecific provision empowering thePublicService Commissiontoconduct interviews of candidates for appointmentor promotion and the only direct 30 reference tointerviews istobe found intheproviso tosection 35
(6)of Law 33/67 in relation to advisory committees for specialized posts. Itisclear from a comparison of theprovisions of subsections
(4)and
(6)of section 35 thatinterviews should notbe confused with 35 oralorwritten examinations. However inCircular490, which was issued on 20 March 1979, and which containsregulatory provisions made by the Councilof 1086 3C.L.R. Republicv.Panayiotldea Triantafyttlde*P. Ministers under section 36 of Law 33/67 in relation the Departmental Committees set up to advise the Public Service Commission in respect of appointments or promotions to non specialized posts, there isto be found (in paragraph 7) express 5 provision regarding the power of the PublicService Commission to interview candidates, whether or not they have been recommended byaDepartmental Committee. Notwithstanding the absence of express statutory provision in Law33/67, orinany otherrelevant enactment, empowering the 10 Public Service Commission to interview candidates, there has been established a practice of the Public Service Commission to interview candidates forthe purpose ofevaluatingtheirsuitability andthispracticehasreceivedrepeatedlyexpressrecognitioninthe case-law of this Court as a course which is open to the 15 Commission, or other appointing authority, but which the Commission isnotbound toadoptinallcases(see,forexample,in thisrespect, Triantafyllides v. The Republic,
(1970)3 C.L.R. 235, 245, Constantinides v. Repubiic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 508, 516, Myrtiotisv. TheRepublic,
(1975)3 C.L.R. 58,68, and on appeal 20
(1975)3 C.L.R. 484, Duncan v. The Repubiic,
(1977)3 C.L.R. 153, 163, Christodouiou v. The Cyprus Telecommunications Authority,
(1978)3 C.L.R. 61, 67, Panayidou v. The Republic,
(1978)3 C.L.R. 144, 153, Stylianou v. The Public Service Commission,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 11, 16, Sawa v. The Republic, 25
(1980)3 C.L.R. 675,691, Marathevtou v. TheRepublic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1088, 1093,Pieridou v. The Repubiic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1, 6, Smymios v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 124,135, Makrides v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 622, 633, Mytides v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1096, 1105, Papadopoulos v. The 30 Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1423,1429, The Republic v. Petrides,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 378,386, Christoudiasv. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 657,664,Loizidou-Papaphoti v. TheEducational Service Commission,
(1984)3C.L.R.933,939,Kyriacouv. TheRepubUc,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 830, 848, Ioannides v. The Republic,
(1985)3 35 C.L.R.2450,2456,Nicolaidou v.ThePublicSevice Commission,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2492, 2499, derides v. The Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2594, 2608, Yenakritou v. The Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2731, 2743, Stephanou v. The Republic,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 779, 786, and Kalosv. The Republic,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 942,954). 40 It is thus overwhelmingly established, on the basis of the aforesaid case-law, that the interviews of candidates for appointment or promotion isa firmly embedded and legitimate, 1087 TriantafyUJdesP. Republicv.Panayiotides
(1987)though not an exclusive, mode of assessing the suitability of candidates. As has been pointed out recently in The Republic v. Zachariades,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 852, 856, the performance of the candidates when interviewed «is a process helping in the evaluation of candidates, mainly from the point of view of merit and,also,toacertainextent,ofqualificationsaswell.» 5 It ispertinent to observe in thisrespect that on more than one occasion this Court hasannulled a promotion orappointment on theground that undue weight wasgiventothe impressionsofthe 10 organ concerned regarding the performance of the candidates when interviewed by it (see, for example, 77ie Republic v. Maratheftis,
(1986)3C.L.R. 1407,1414). Itisnotalways,necessarily, areasonforannulmentthefactthat great importance was attached to the impressions from the 15 interviews, because the adoption of such a course may be warranted by the circumstances of a case and ifsuch course was adopted in a manner compatible with the proper exercise of the relevant discretionary powers of the Public Service Commission, or other appointing authority, it could not be said that undue 20 importance was given to the impressions from the interviews on thatparticularoccasion. In the present case what has given us cause for considerable anxiety is the way in which the interviews of the candidates, including the respondent and the interested party, were carried 25 out. Asitappears from the relevant minutesof the appellant Public Service Commission, dated 23 July 1983,the candidates for the post, who were seven in alland included the respondent and the interested party, were interviewed jointly by way of a «group 30 interview», at which the Director of Medical and Public Health Services and the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission put to them questions regarding matters of general nature and, mainly,on mattersrelatingtothedutiesofthe postas they are set out inthe relevantscheme of service. 35 Then, on 2 August 1983, the Director of Medical and Public Health Services evaluated the performance of the seven candidates when interviewed and described the performance of therespondentas«nearlyverygood»andoftheinterestedpartyas 1088 3C.L.R. Republicv.Panayiotides TrlantafyllldesP. «very very good» having described the performance of others in thesamegroupas«good»,«very,verygood»and «excellent»;and then the Commission, bearing in mind the evaluation made, as aforesaid, bythe Director of Medical and Public Health Services, 5 evaluated also the performance of the seven candidates in question and described that of the respondent as «nearly very good» and that of the interested party as «very good», having described the performance of the other candidates in the same groupas«nearlygood»,«verygood»and «veryverygood». 10 The performance of the respondent and of the interested party when interviewed in 1983 wastaken into account by the Public Service Commission on 10 August 1984, when its sub judice decision topromote theinterested partywas reached. It is to be observed that the Public Service Commission, for 15 reasons with which we are not concerned in the present proceedings, had revoked an earlier promotion of the interested party to the post in question and proceeded to re-examine the matterand,on 10August 1984,itdecidedthattheinterestedparty should bepreferred once againforpromotion tothe respondent. 20 It appears from the reasoning of the Public Service Commission, assetoutinitsrelevantminutesof 10August1984, that a slight superiority of the respondent on the basis of the confidential reportsandhisslightsenioritywereneutralizedbythe better impression which the interested party has made, when 25 interviewed,bothtotheDirectoroftheMedicalandPublicHealth Servicesand tothe Commission. We find tobe unsafe and quite unsatisfactory the adoption by the Commission of the course of interviewing the seven candidatesforappointment,tothethreevacant,atthetime,posts 30 of Registrar (Orthopaedic), all together in a group and not each one byhimself. Inouropinion,saveinexceptionalcases,suchasthoseinwhich thereistobeascertained,asbeingthefactormainlyrelevanttothe duties of the post in question, the physique or appearance of 35 candidates, there should not be conducted group interviews of candidates, because the interviews cannot be turned in thisway into group personality contests; and as stated earlier in this judgmentinterviewsarenottobeconfused withoralexaminations undersection31
(4)of Law33/67,asamended byLaw 10/83 1089 Triootofi^SdooP. EcpaWlcw.Panoyiotldeo
(1987)We fail to see how, after interviewing seven doctors together who were candidates for the post in question, the Commission could, with any certainty, reach the conclusion that during this group interviewthe respondent wasfound bythe Commission to have been «nearly very good» and the interested party «very 5 good»; and on the basis of this marginal difference the Commission proceeded to find that the superiority of the respondentasregardsmeritandseniority,eventhoughadmittedly slight, was neutralized by the slightly better performance of the interested party, when interviewed together with respondent and 10 five othersatone and thesametime inagroup. Inthisrespect weshouldstressthat itwasnot legitimate for the Commission totakeintoaccount, aspartofitsreasoning,theway inwhich the Director of Medical and Public Health Services had evaluatedtheperformance oftherespondentandoftheinterested 15 party when interviewed, namely nearly «very good» and «very verygood»,respectivelyandtorelyonitasjustifying itspreference forthe interested party instead of the respondent. The evaluation made by the Director of Medical and Public Health Services wasonlya factor to be used bythe Commission 20 in making its own final evaluation of the performance of the candidatesconcerned when interviewed, andnotan independent criteriatobereliedonaspartofthefinalreasoningoftheappellant PublicService Commission. Moreover, as it was rightly pointed out in Smymios v. The 2S Republic, supra, at p. 135,there isan undeniable possibility that anadroitcandidate,when he isbeinginterviewed, maymakethe Commissionthinkmorehighlyofhimthanhedeserves,butonthe other hand, a timid or nervous candidate may not be able to show hisreal merit; and thisapplies with even greater force to a 30 situation inwhich candidates are interviewed ina group because in such circumstances it would be natural to expect the adroit candidate toappear inabetterlightand thetimidcandidate tobe overshadowed. Inthelightof allthe foregoingwehavereached theconclusion 35 that, even if it might be said mat the appellant Public Service Commission hasnotgivenundue weight totheimpressions from the interviewsof the candidates -and we make nofindinginthis respect one wayor the other -nevertheless the manner in which thecandidateswere interviewed, namely ina group ofseven and 40 1090 3C L R . Republicv.Panaylotlde· TrlantafylUde* P. not each one separately, was fraught with the risk of unsafe and unjust findings by the appellant Public Service Commission, ina manner vitiating and rendering defective the exercise of its relevant discretionary powers, and for thisreason we uphold the 5 annulment of the appointment of the interested party and we dismissthisappeal. We think, however, that it was not warranted to award £100 costs in favour of the respondent, as the applicant in these proceedings, and we, therefore, order that there should be no 10 order astothecosts ofeither the first instancetrialorthe appeal. Appeal dismissed. Orderforcostsas above. 1091