3C.L.R. 1986 February12 fTRIANTAFYLUDES,P.) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION CHARITTNISCOUFAP.I, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 228/81). Administrative act—Composite administrative action —Defect ina decision forming partof the whole process —May leadtoinvalidity of the final decision. 5 10 Public Officers —Appointments — First entry specialised post — Advisory Committee(Section34ofthePublicServiceLaw33/67)—Reportof—Part ofmewholecompositeadministrativeaction—Defectinitsdecisionmaylead totheinvalidityofthefinalappointment. Public Officers —Appointments —First entry specialised post.— Vacancies created afterfirstadvertisement, butbeforefinalact—Complaipt ofthe failure toadvertise such vacancies —Asapplicant was notamong those recommended by theAdvisory Committee, hiscomplaint isirrelevant to theseproceedings. Tt>eapplicant impugnsthe validity of the appointment of the interested partiestothepostofAssistantWelfareOfficer, afirstentryspecialisedpost. 15 20 Theapplicantwasnotamongthecandidateswhohadbeenrecommended bytheAdvisoryCommitteesetuppursuanttosection34ofthePublicService Law33/67. The applicant contended thatthe reportof the Committeewasnotduly reasoned, thattheCommitteefailed tocarryoutadueinquiryandthatthe minutesofitsmeetingsaresuch,astorenderJudicialcontrolimpossible. Theapplicant,also,contendedthattheprocesswasvitiatedbythefactthat there had not been any advertisement ofvacancies created after the first advertisement,butbeforethefinalselection 1845
(1987)Scoufari v. Republic Held, dismissing the recourse·
(1)The list prepared by the Advisory Committee is part of the composite administrative action leading up to the final decision. It follows, that a defect in the decision of the Advisory Committee leads tothe invalidity of the final act 2)Thedecision oftheAdvisoryCommittee isdulyreasoned.TheCommittee did cany out a due inquiry.The minutesof itsmeetingsare adequate. 5 3) As the applicant had not been included in the list recommended by the AdvisoryCommittee, hislastcomplaintisirrelevanttothese proceedings. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Michaeloudes v. TheRepublic
(1979)3 C.L.R.56; loannou v.E.A.C.
(1981)3C.L.R 280. Recourse. Recourse-against the decision ofthe respondenttopromotethe 15 interested parties to the post of Assistant Welfare Officer inpreference and instead ofthe applicant. A. S. Angelides withM.Pierides,forthe applicant. G. Erotocritou (Mrs.),Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. 20 Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.readthefollowingjudgment. Bymeans ofthepresentrecoursetheapplicantchallengesthedecisionofthe respondent Public Service Commission to appoint to the post of Assistant Welfare Officer the interested parties whose names 25 appear inappendix «A»attached tothe recourse. As the post of Assistant Welfare Officer is a first entry post vacancies in such post were advertised in the Official Gazette of the Republic and two hundred and one applications for appointment thereto were received. Asthe post of Assistant Welfare Officer had been declared by the Council of Ministers to be a specialized post an Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of the Acting DirectorGeneraloftheMinistryofLabourandSocialInsurance,wassetup 1846 QQ "ι 3 C.L.R. Scoufari v. Republic TriantafyiHdes P. as provided by section 34 of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67). The Advisory Committee met and considered, in accordance with section 35
(3)of Law 33/67, theapplications forappointment 5 to the post in question and decided on the list of those to be recommended assuitable, buttheapplicantwas notoneof them. Eventually the Public Service Commission appointed the interested parties and their appointments were published in the Official Gazetteof the Republic on 23 April 1981. 10 As the said appointments were effected by the Public Service Commission from thelistof thecandidateswhich was submittedto itby theAdvisory Committeetheapplicant iscomplaining against the decision of theAdvisory Committeenottoinclude herinsuch list. 15 Inthe light of case-law such as Michaeloudes v. The Republic,
(1979)3 C.L R.56, 71,andioannou v. TheElectricityAuthority of Cyprus,
(1981)3 C.L.R. 280, 298, 299, there isno doubtthatthe listprepared by theAdvisory Committee,onthebasisofwhich the respondent Commission effected the sub judice appointments, 20 forms part of the composite administrative process leading up to the final decision of the commission to appoint the interested parties and merged in the said final decision which is being challenged by means of the present recourse. It follows that a defect of the decision of theAdvisory Committeemay lead tothe 25 invalidity of thesubjudice appointmentsof theinterested parties. Counsel for the applicant has contended thatthe report of the Advisory Committee is not duly reasoned, that the Committee failed to carry out a due inquiry and that the lack of adequate minutes of its meetings renders judicial control, in the present 30 case, impossible. From the material before the Court it is clear thattheAdvisory Committee had before ittheapplications of all thecandidates,the personal and confidential reports files of all the candidates who had been servingintemporaryposts,andhadalso theopportunity 35 to interview the candidates who presented themselves for interview; and itis notalleged thattheapplicant was notcalled to be interviewed. Havingtaken intoaccount all relevant factors I am of the view thatthe AdvisoryCommitteehas carriedout a due inquiry before 1847 TriantafytlldesP. Scoufarlv.RepabUc
(1987)reaching its decision as regards whom to recommend for appointment, that in its minutes there appear sufficiently the considerations which had led it to its decision and that the necessaryreasoningistobesufficiently derived therefrom. Counsel for the applicant had submitted further that the respondentCommissionwaslabouringunderamisconceptionof factasitdidnotknowallthefactsleadinguptothedecisionofthe AdvisoryCommittee. 5 The contents, however, of the relevant minutes of the Commission, dated 12September 1980,andofthereportofthe 10 Advisory Committee, leave no room for doubt that the Public Service Commission was fully aware of all the material factors whichweretakenintoaccountbytheAdvisoryCommittee. Ithas,also, been arguedthatthe failure ofthe Commission to advertise new vacancies, which were created after the first 15 advertisement and before the final selection of thecandidatesto be appointed, has vitiated the process leading up to the appointmentoftheinterestedparties. AsLhowever, the applicant was not included inthe listof the candidates who were recommended to the respondent 20 Commission by the Advisory Committee it follows, in the particularcircumstancesofthepresentcase,thatitisirrelevantfor theoutcomeofthepresentrecoursewhetheranylatervacancies were advertised, even assuming, without so deciding, that they hadtobeadvertised. ^5 Intheresultthisrecoursefailsandisdismissedaccordingly;but withnoorderastoitscosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1848