(1987)1987October31 [DEMETRIADES J ] INTHE MATTEROFARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASXEROS Applicant, ν THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE PUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent (Case No 466/82) Public Officers — Promotions — Confidential reports — Circular 491/79 containing the regulations for the preparation of confidential reports— Put intoeffect asfrom 1 180— Applicabilityof, inrespectof reportsfor the year 1979 whichweremade by the reportingofficeratsome timedunng 1980 Executoryact— Intenriediate act— Cannotbe challengedbyitself, but ifthe final actisreliedupon aninvalidintenriediateact, thensuchfinalactisalsoinvalid — Confidentialreportforpublicofficerinvalid—Finalactofpromotion,also invalid Public Officers — Promotions — Confidential reports — Circular 491/79 containingthe regulationsfor the preparation of confidentialreports— Reg 11 —Breach of— Tantamounts toillegality 5 10 Constitutional Law — Equality — Constitution, Art 28 — Circular 491/79 containingthe regulationsfor thepreparation of confidentialreports— Reg 11 — Breachof— Tantamounts to violation ofArt 28 By means of this recourse the applicant challenges the validity of the promotion of theinterestedpartytothepostofSeniorSpecialist, Medicaland Public Health Services The applicant is senior tothe interested partv and was recommended for promotion by the Head of the Department The respondent Commission, however, decided to promote the interested party because of the great difference in ment between the two officers «as it appears from their confidential reportsfor thelast threeyears»(1979,1980, 1981) 1322 15 20 3C.L.R. Xerosv. Republic Itmustbenotedthatintwooftheitemstheapplicantwasratedinthereport of 1979 as «mediocre».The applicant, however, was not informed of such rating 5 10 Counsel for theapplicant argued that theconfidential report for 1979was prepared in contravention of Regulation 11* of Circular 491/79, whilst counsel for the interested party submitted that as Circular 491 wasput into effect as from 1.1.80, Regulation 11 was not applicable to the confidential reportof 1979. Held, annullingthe subjudice deuston:
(1)As the confidential report in question wasprepared bythe reportingofficer on 21 8.80, theprovisionsof the newregulations(Circular491)wereapplicable toit.
(2)Thereisnodoubtthat thereportingofficer didnotcomply inrespectof theconfidential reportfor 1979with therequirements of Regulation 11(a) 15
(3)Confidential reports,beingintenriediate acts,cannotbe challenged on theirown,butwhen theyareinvalidandafinaladministrativeactisreliedon them,such finalactis,alsoinvalid.
(4)Theprovisionsoftheregulationsconcerningpreparation of confidential reports have to be strictly complied with and any deviation istantamount to illegalityandviolatesArticle28ofthe Constitution. 20 Subjudice decisionannulled. Costsinfavourofapplicant CasesreferredtoRepublicv. Argyndes
(1987)3C.L.R 1092, Papamichaelv.Republic
(1987)3CL.R 1113, Stylianidesv.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R.1123. 25 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interestedpartytothepostofSeniorSpecialistintheMedicaland PublicHealthServicesinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicant. K. Talarides, forthe applicant. 30 A. Papasawas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Quotedatpp 1328-1329post 1323 Xerosv.Republic
(1987)A S Angehdes, for theinterested party Cur adv vult DEMETRIADESJ read the following judgment By means of the present recourse the applicant challenges, in effect, the promotion, instead of him, of Ν Angelides, tothepost of Senior 5 Specialist, Medical and Public Health Services Therecourse onginally was aimedalsoagainst theannulmentof the promotion to the same post of interested party A Papanastassiou, but as it was withdrawn by the applicant against this interested party, it is to be treated as having been dismissed 10 accordingly The post of Senior Specialist is apromotion post When twelvevacancies ofthispost were created,theMinistryof Health requested their filling As a result, a Departmental Committeewas set upinaccordancewith theprovisions ofsection 36 of the Public Service Laws 1967-1981, which recommended 15 for promotion 22 out of the 30 candidates whose names were included in the list submitted to it Two of the candidates so recommended by the Committee were the applicant and the interested party Itis to be noted thatthetwelve vacancies were not for one but 20 for a number ofspecializations, oneof themforsurgery, for which there were vacant two posts At its meeting of the 17th July, 1982, the Public Service Commission considered the matter of the filling of the twelve vacancies and having taken into account the number of posts 25 vacant for each specialization, the material contained in the personal and confidential report files of the candidates, the conclusions of the Departmental Committee and the views and recommendations of the Directorof Medical Services and Public Health Services, decided to promote to the two posts of Senior 30 Specialist (Surgery), as from the 1st August, 1982, Dr A Papanastassiou and interested party Dr Ν Angelides The relevant part of the minutes of the Public Service Commission readsas follows. «Η Επιτροπή, α φ ο ύ εξήτασε τ α ουσιώδη στοιχεία 35 από τους Προσωπικούς Φακέλλους και τ α ς Εμπιστευτικός Εκθέσειςτων υποψηφίων καιέλαβεν υπ' όψιν τ α πορίσματα τ η ς Τμηματικής Επιτροπής και τ α ς κρίσεις και συστάσεις τ ο υ Διευθυντού Ιατρικών Υπηρεσιών και Υπηρεσιών Δημοσίας Υγείας, υιοθέτησε 40 1324 3CX.R. Xeroev.Republic DemetriadesJ. 5 τας συστάσεις του Διευθυντού, εκτός εις την περίπτωσιν του κ. Ανδρέου Ξερού διά μίαν εκ των δύο θέσεων του Κλάδου Χειρουργικής. Αντί αυτού η Επιτροπή επέλεξε τον κ. Νίκον Αγγελίδην, τον οποίον έκρινεν ως καταλληλότερον. 10 Η Επιτροπή παρετήρησεν εν προκειμένω ότι ο κ. Αγγελίδης έχει γενικώς υψηλοτέρας Εμπιστευτικός Εκθέσεις τ ο υ κ. Ξερού. Ενδεικτικώς αναφέρεται κατωτέρω η βαθμολογία αμφοτέρων κατά τ α τρία τελευταίαέ τ η : Νίκος Αγγελίδης: 15 1979: Γενικώς ως 'Εξαίρετος' ('Εξαίρετος' και εις τας 12παραγράφους της επί μέρους βαθμολογίας). 1980: Ως και διά τ ο 1979. 1981: Ως και διά τ α δύο προηγούμενα έτη. Ανδρέας Ξερός: 1979: 20 25 Γενικώς ως 'Καλός' ('Εξαίρετος» εις 2 παραγρά φους της επί μέρους βαθμολογίας, 'Λίαν Κα λός' εις 4, 'Καλός' εις 3 και 'Μέτριος' εις 2. Εις μίαν παράγραφον δεν εβαθμολογήθη). 1980: Γενικώς ως 'Λίαν Καλός' ('Εξαίρετος' εις 4 πα ραγράφους της επί μέρους βαθμολογίας και 'Λίαν Καλός' εις8). 1981: Γένικώς ως 'Λίαν Καλός' ('Εξαίρετος' εις 6 παραγράφους της επί μέρους βαθμολογίας και 'Λίαν Καλός' εις6). Η Επιτροπή δεν δύναται εν προκειμένω να παράβλεψη την μετρίαν αξιολόγησιν τ ο υ κ. Ξερού εις δυο παραγράφους της βαθμολογίας τ ο υ κατά τ ο 1979. 30 35 Η Επιτροπή απέδωσεν ωσαύτως την δέουσαν βαρύτητα εις τ α αντίστοιχα προσόντα των δύο υποψηφίων και έλαβεν εν προκειμένω υπ' όψιν όλα τ α πιστοποιητικά και τ α άλλα στοιχεία, τ α αφορωντα εις την ακαδημαϊκήν κατάρτισιν και την πείραν τούτων. Η Επιτροπή έλαβεπεραιτέρω υπ' όψιν τ ο γεγονός ότι ο κ. Ξερός προηγείται εις αρχαιότητα τ ο υ κ. Αγγελίδη, προαχθείς εις την θεσιν Ειδικού Ιατρού (Χειρουργικής) από 1.6.71,έναντι 1.3.77του κ. Αγγελίδη. 1325 DemetrindesJ. Xerosv.Republic
(1987)Η Επιτροπή, υπό το φωςτων ενγένειπεριστατικών και ενόψει κυρίωςτηςμεγάλης διαφοράς εις την αξίαν των δύο. υπαλλήλων, ως προκύπτει εκ των Εμπιστευτικών Εκθέσεωντων κατά τ α τρία τελευταία έτη, έκρινεν επί τη βάσει τ ο υ συνόλου των 5 καθιερωμένων κριτηρίων τον κ. Αγγελίδην ως υπέρτερον και καταλληλότερον τ ο υ κ. Ξερού διά την πλήρωσιν της δευτέρας θέσεως Ανωτέρου Ειδικού Ιατρού εις τον Κλάδον Χειρουργικής.» («The Commission, having examined theessential material 10 from the Personal Files and the Confidential Reports of the candidates and having considered the conclusions of the Departmental Committee and the views and recommenda tions of the Director of Medical Services and Public Health Services, adopted the recommendations of the Director, 15 except in the case of Mr.Andreas Xeros for one of the two posts of the Surgery Branch. Instead of him the Commission chose Mr. Nicos Angelides whom it considered as more suitable. The Commission observed in this respect that Mr. Ange- 20 lides has generally better Confidential Reports than Mr. Xeros. Thereisstated indicatively further ontheratingof both during thelastthree years: Nicos Angelides: 1979: Generally as 'Excellent' ('Excellent' in all 12 paragraphs). 1980: As in
- 1981: As in bothprevious years. 25 Andreas Xeros: 1979: Generally as 'Good' ('Excellent' in 2 individual items, 'Very Good' in 4, 'Good'in3 and 'Mediocre' in
- Inone paragraph he was notrated). 1980: Generally as 'Very Good' ('Excellent' in4 individual items and 'Very Good' in8). 1981: Generally as Very Good' ('Excellent' in6 individual items and 'Very Good'in6). The Commission cannot, in this respect, overlook the mediocre assessment of Mr.Xeros in two paragraphs of his rating in
- 1326 30 35 3C.L.R. Xerosv. Republic Demetriades J . The Commission attributed also the proper weight to the respectivequalifications ofthetwocandidatesandtookinthis respect into account allthe certificates and allother material relatingtotheiracademicqualifications andtheirexperience. 5 10 15 The Commission took further intoaccount thefact thatMr. Xeros precedes in seniority Mr. Angelides, having been promoted tothepostofSpecialist(Surgery)asfrom 1.6.71,as against 1.3.77ofMr.Angelides. TheCommission, inthelightofallthecircumstancesandin view especially of the great difference in merit of the two officers, as it appears from their Confidential Reports during thelastthreeyears,consideredonthebasisofthe established criteriaasawholeMr.Angelidesassuperiorandmoresuitable to Mr. Xeros for the filling of the second post of Senior Specialist inthe Surgery Branch.») Counsel for theapplicantsubmitted thatthe confidential report in respect of the applicant for the year 1979, was prepared in contravention of the provisions of regulation 11 of the relevant Regulations for the preparation and submission of confidential 20 reports, approved by the Council of Ministers and embodied in Circular 491 of the 26th March, 1979, by means of which the General Orders previously in force were repealed and that the Commission failed togothrough the personal fileofthe applicant andcarryoutaninquiryastowhethertheapplicantwasawarethat 25 intwo individual itemsof the confidential report for 1979he was rated as«Mediocre*. On the other hand, counsel for the interested party submitted thatasthesaidRegulationswereputintoforce onthe 1stJanuary, 1980,regulation 11wasnotapplicable fortheconfidential report 30 of 1979 and that as the applicant knew about the adverse report and had failed tochallenge it,itbecame final. , Before proceeding with the arguments advanced on behalf of theapplicant, ithastobestatedthathavingconsidered thefirstleg of the argument of counsel for the interested party, Iam of the 35 opinion thatastheconfidential reportconcernedwaspreparedby 1327 DemetriadesJ. Xerosv.Republic
(1987)the reporting officer on the 21st August 1980, the provisions of the new Regulations were applicable inrespect of it Inany case, the reporting officer had filled in the new form of confidential reports and on the 11th December, 1981, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, ina letteraddressed totheDirectorof 5 Medical Services and Public Health Services, observed that as therewas notcommunicatedtotheapplicantinwnting his adverse rating, directions ought tobegiven tothe reporting officer toactin accordance with the provisions of regulation 11 of the relevant Regulations 20 From a letter of the Director of Medical Services and Public Health Services dated the 25th January, 1982, which he addressed to the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, it appears that the non communication to the applicant of the adverse assessment of him was due to a misunderstanding of his 15 (the Director'
- s)part and that in his opinion no purpose could be served by communicating totheapplicant,atthattime,his adverse rating in view of the fact thatthe applicant had, in the meantime, shown considerable improvement From theabove itisclearthattheapplicantwas notatany time, 20 before the filing of his present recourse, aware of the opinion the Directorexpressed (adverse assessment) inthe confidential report for 1979 Confidential reports being intermediate acts cannot be challenged on their own but when they are invalid and an 25 administrative act is relied upon them, such act, being the final one, is also invalid and an applicant challenging thatact is, in my view, entitled to invoke the invalidity in the preparation of the confidential report Regulation 11(a)towhich Ihave earlier referred reads 30 «11.(α) Εάν ο Αξιόλογων Λειτουργός αξιολόγηση οιονδήποτε υττάλληλον 'Μετριον' ή 'Ανεπαρκή' υποχρεούται όπωςγνωστοποίηση τούτο εγγράφως εις τον υπάλληλον ένα τουλαχιοτον μήνα προ της υποβολής της εκθέσεως ειςτην Επιτροπήν. Η σχετική 35 γνωστοποίησις δέον να παραθέτη περιπτώσεις και συγκεκριμένα στοιχεία επί των οποίων βασίζεται η τοιαύτη αξιολόγησις, το γεγονός δε της τοιαύτης γνωστοποιήσεως δέον να αναψέρηται ειςτ ο Μέρος IV της εκθέσεως.» 40 1328 3 C.L.R. 5 Xeros v.Republic Demetriades J. («11.(
- a)If the Reporting Officer assesses any officer 'Mediocre' or 'Inadequate' he isobliged tocommunicate this in writing to the officer at least one month before the submission of the report to the Commission. The relevant communication must cite instances and concrete material on which such assessment is based, and the fact of such communication must be referred inPart IVofthe report».) Fromtheparticularcircumstancesofthepresentcasethereisno doubt that the Reporting Officer has not complied with the 10 provisions of regulation 11(a)above inpreparing the confidential report inrespect of the applicant for the year 1979. In recent case-law of this Court such as The Republic v. Argyrides, (R.A.678, delivered on the 11th June, 1987, and not yet reported*), Papamichael v. The Republic, (Case No.807/85, 15 delivered on the 29th July, 1987, and not yet reported**) and Sfylianides v. The Republic, (Case No. 626/85, delivered on the 25th August. 1987, not yet reported***),the view wastaken that the provisions of the regulationshave to bestrictlycomplied with and thatanydeviation from theirexpressprovisionsistantamount 20 toanillegalityandviolatesArticle28oftheConstitution inthatthe procedure for the preparation of confidential reports contemplated bythe Regulations should be strictly adhered to in allcaseswithout any differentiation. Ifully endorse the above approach for the purpose of thiscase 25 tooand conclude that asthesubjudice decision wastaken on the basis, amongst others, of the invalid confidential report for the year 1979,suchdecisionisinlawdefectiveandhastobeannulled. In view of the foregoing there is no need to embark into the examination of any other ground raised inthe present case. 30 Inthe result, the present recourse succeeds and the sub judice decision isannulled withcosts. Coststobe assessed bythe Registrar. Sub judice decision annulled withcosts. 'ReportedinI1987)3CL.R. 1092 "Reported in{1987}3C.L.R 1113. '"Reported in
(1987)3C.L.R. 1123 1329