clr/1987/1987_3_431.pdf

(1)Interviews do not constitute a critenon by itself separate from the merit. qualificationsandexperience of thecandidates,buttheyaremerelyamean; zl'Ji S a w t d e » J. Stephanou v. Republic

(1987)of forming anopinion andevaluating the ments.notwithstandingthe factthat itisnotthesafest one

(2)A perusal of the minutes of the respondent Comm.ssion leads to the conclusion thattheCommission hasgiven undueweight totheinterviews and inparticulartotheimpressions formed by itatsuch interviews, which ittreated as a cntenon by itself in the evaluation of the candidates and which unduly affected the final decision 5 Appeal allowed Subjudice decisionannulled Noorder as to costs 10 Casesreferredto. Tnantafylhdes and Othersν TheRepublic

(1970)3 C.LR 235; Makndes and Another v.TheRepublic

(1983)3 CLR 622; Lambis and Others v. The Republic{\9&6) 3 C LR 130, Papadopoulos ν TheRepublic

(1983)3 CL.R 1423. 15 Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment of aJudge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Loris, J.) given on the 29th March, 1986 (Revisionai Jurisdiction Case No. 281/84)* whereby appellant's recourse against the promotion of the interested party tothe post of Chief 20 School Clerk in the Ministry of Education in preference and instead of the appellant was dismissed. E.Efstathiou, for the appellant. M. Florentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLUDES P.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr.Justice Sawides. SA WIDES J.: Thisisan appeal against thejudgment ofa Judge of this Court exercising original jurisdiction in the first instance, 30 whereby he dismissed the recourse of the appellant by which he was challenging the promotionof the interested party tothe post *Reportedm

(1986)3CL R. 779 432 25 3 C.L.R. Stephanou v. Republic S a w l d e s J. of Chief School Clerk (Ministry of Education) in preference and instead of the appellant. The learned trialJudge after he had dealt with allrelevant facts ofthe case and had expounded ontheprinciplespertaining tothe 5 promotions and the criteria fixed by law, as emanating from the case law of the Supreme Court, concluded as follows at p. 789 (seeStephanou v.Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 779). 10 15 •Inthe lightofthe above, 1am satisfied that the respondent P.S.C. carried out due inquiry, taking into consideration all relevant criteriaand properly applying the Lawinreachingat the subjudice decision which wasreasonably open toit. Theapplicantfailed toprovestrikingsuperiority, asalready stated;onthecontrarytheinterestedpartyisbettermerited for the reasonsalready explained, whilstasregards qualifications inspite of applicant's manifestly superior Academic qualifications, such qualifications do not indicate by themselves 'striking superiority' as they were not envisaged by the relevant Scheme of Service asan advantage.» The learned trial Judge also rejected the appellant's complaint 20 thatthesubjudicedecisionwasnotdulyreasoned andfound that- 25 «The reasoning behind a decision may be legitimately supplemented from thematerialcontained inthefiles;and the filesbefore me,towhich extensive reference wasmadeinthis judgment, contain morethantherequired materialwhichcan support the subjudice decision allowing at the same time an unhindered judicial scrutiny.» Inthe result the appellant's recourse was dismissed, hence the present appeal. Counsel for the appellant in arguing the grounds of appeal 30 relied upon, contended that:(a) the decision of the trial Court was wrong in law and was based on misinterpretation of the law. (b)The findings of the trial Court are not justified in the lightof the material and/orthe evidence before the Court. 05 (c) The decision of the trial Court was the result of a wrong approach astothe principlesapplicable incase of promotions. 433 SawldesJ. Stephanou v. Republic

(1987)(d)The final conclusion ofthe trialCourt wasnotjustified inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the appellant submitted that once the respondent Commission found that both the appellant and the interested party, on the basis of their confidential reports for the last three 5 years, were excellent, it went wrong to hold an interview and postpone the taking of a decision after the evaluation of the candidates atthe interview, Once both candidates, counsel submitted, were found as excellent in merit, the respondent should have proceeded to 10 consider and compare their qualifications and then take into consideration their seniority aswell.On the basisof qualifications the appellant was by farsuperior to the interested party and even ifonsuch criteriathe partieswerefound equal,theseniorityofthe appellant should have prevailed and the appellant should have 15 been promoted instead of theinterested party. Counsel for the respondent contended that the decision of the trial Court in affirming the subjudice decision of the respondent was correct and that the appellant failed toprove any superiority over the interested party and in any event striking superiority. 20 Counsel submitted that the respondent Commission in selecting thebest candidate forpromotion, properlyselected the interested party asinthe light oftheconfidential reportsofthe lastfive years the interested party wasby farsuperior totheappellant. Also,the interested party had in his credit the recommendation of the 25 Director-General of the Ministry of Education according to which he wassuperior inallrespectsconcerning theconfidential reports, hispersonality and abilities,andwasrecommended byhimasthe most suitable for the post. In his submission, the respondent Commission wasentitled tocallthecandidatesforaninterviewfor 30 the purpose of assessing theirpersonality which wasessential for the duties of the post. By holding such interview the respondent Commission did not act in excess of itsauthority and inany event ithasnot given undue weight tothe interview. The facts of the case are briefly asfollows: The appellant and the interested party were amongst the three candidates who were considered bythe respondent for the filling of the vacant post of Chief School Clerk (Ministry of Education) which wasvacantatthe materialtime,after alistofcandidateswas 434 35 3 C.L.R. Stephanou v. Republic S a w l d e s J. prepared by a Departmental Committee and submitted to the respondent. Therespondent Commission atitsmeetingof23.1.84heardthe recommendations of the Director-General of the Ministry of 5 Education and then proceeded to examine the personal files and confidential reports of the candidates. The recommendations of the Director-General of the Ministry of Education concerning the appellantandtheinterestedpartyasrecorded intheminutesofthe meeting, are as follows: 10 15 Out of the three candidates Costas Stefanou is first in seniority and Nicos Dometakis second. The selection should be made between these two candidates. In the confidential reports Dometakis appears, and rightly so, as better. He is superior in all respects, concerning personality and abilities and he isthe most suitable for the post. DometakisisservinginLimassol. He isthesecretaryof the School Committee and hasanexcellentperformance. Heisa very competent person. 20 Stefanou is a librarian at the Paedagogic Academy and in addition to his other qualifications he possesses a diploma in literature.» The minutes of the Committee as to what happened at such meeting, read as follows: 25 «TheCommission examined the material facts from the file forthefillingofthepostandthepersonalfilesand confidential reports of the candidates and took into consideration the conclusions of the Departmental Committee and the opinion and recommendations oftheDirector-General oftheMinistry of Education. 30 The Commission noted that all three candidates have excellentconfidential reportsforthelastthreeyears. Stefanou has agrading 10-2 -0in 1980-1981 and 12-0 -0for 1981 - 1982 and 1982 - 1983 and the other two 12 -0 -0 for all three years. 35 In view of the above the Commission for the purpose of forming a better evaluation of the merits of the three candidates, decided to invitethem for an interview on a date 435 SawldesJ. Stephanou v. Republic

(1987)tobe fixed later Atsuch meeting, the Director-General ofthe Ministry of Education should be invited toattend» The interview in question, in fact took place on 27 2 1984 and both the Director-General and the respondent Commission made their evaluation as to the performance of the candidates at such £· interview The respondent then proceeded to consider the personal files and confidential reports of the candidates, the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, the performance of the candidates at the interview, the recommendations and views of the Director-General of the 10 Ministryof Education and concluded as follows «The Commission noted that ever since the new type of confidential reports was introduced, Dometakis and Hj Lambns have the highest gradings as a whole, having been assessed asexcellent (12-0 -0)inalltheirreports 15 Stefanou was excellent (8-3-1)in 1978 -1979, very good (7 -5 -0),in 1979 -1980, excellent (10-2 -0),in 1980 -1981 and excellent (12 -0 -0)in 1981 -1982 and 1982 -1983 Stefanou hassupenorqualifications (heisalsotheholderof a diploma in literature), from the other two candidates Such 20 qualifications, however, are not required by the schemes of service and they are not contemplated as an advantage Nevertheless,theCommissionforthepurposeofassessingand companng the general evaluation of the candidates, took them intoconsideration 25 OntheaspectofseniontyStefanou isseniorbyaboutayear to Dometakis in the post of School Clerk 1st Grade HadjiLambns isthird The Commission having taken into consideration the clearly better performance of Dometakis at the interview 30 before it, his better confidential reports in their totality compared with those of Stefanou, as well as the recommendation oftheDirector-General selected Dometakis asthe best » (The underlining isours) The respondent proceeded to promote the interested party to 35 the post asthe most suitable ofthe candidates From what appears from the minutes of the meeting of the respondent Commission at which the selection of the best 436 3 C.L.R. Stephanou v. Republic Sawidea J. candidate took place, one of the matters which affected the final decision oftherespondent wastheimpression formed byitduring theinterviews. The question of impressions formed atinterviews hasbeen the 5 subject matter of consideration and deliberation bythiscourt ina seriesof cases. Ithasbeen held time and again bythiscourt that interviews do not constitute a criterion by itself separate from the merit, qualifications and experience of the candidates but is merely a 10 means of forming an opinion and evaluating the merits, notwithstanding the fact that it is not the safest one. (see Triantafyllides and others v. The Republic

(1970)3 C.L.R. 235; Makridesand Another v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 622 and Lambis and others v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 130 and 15 Papadopoubs v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1423, where it washeld that although the impressionsgained atthe interview as to the personality of a candidate are relevant to the choice of a candidate for promotion especially if the post carries serious administrative responsibilities,they cannot be decisive. 20 Aperusal of theminutesoftherespondentCommission clearly leadstotheconclusion thattherespondentinthepresentcase has given undue weight to the interviews and in particular to the impressions formed by it at such interviews which ittreated as a criterion by itself in the evaluation of the candidates and which 25 undulyaffected itsfinal decision inthe matter. The respondent Commission inevaluating the candidates atits meeting of 23.1.84 found that all three of them had excellent confidential reports during the last three years and as a result it decided to invite them for an interview for the purpose of their 30 betterevaluation.Andthen atitsmeeting of27.2.84itisexpressly stated that the Commission took into consideration «the clearly betterperformance ofDometakisattheinterviewbefore it » Having reached the conclusion that the respondent Commission in the present case has given undue weight to the 35 interview, the result ofwhichwastotipthescales infavour ofthe interested party, we decided that the appeal should be allowed andthesubjudicedecision oftherespondent Commission should beannulled onthis ground. We shall avoid making any pronouncement as to who of the 437 SawldeaJ. Stephanou v. Republic

(1987)candidatesisthebestonthebasisoftheestablished cntena asany opinion on our part may be an impediment for the respondent when re-examining the case afresh Intheresulttheappeal isallowedand thesubjudicedecisionis annulled 5 Inthe circumstances we make no order for costs Appeal allowed Subjudice decision annulled No order asto costs 438 10