(19S7) 1987May7 (MALACHTOS,J| INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION IOANNISLOIZIDES. Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH EDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMITTEE, Respondent. (Case No. 182/77). Educational Officers—Appointments—First ennypost—Fact thatallcandidates come from the service does not convert it into a promotion post — Respondents correctly followed procedure of section 28, instead of that of section35 ofthePublic Educational ServiceLaw 10/69—Applicant holding amore seniorpost to that oftheinterested parties — Respondent not bound 5 to give special reasons why the interested parties were preferred to the applicant. By meansofthisrecourse theapplicant challengestheappointment ofthe interested party to the post of Inspector, 1st Grade, Secondary Education, insteadof theapplicant Held, dismissingtherecourse (l)The complaint thattherespondentsacted contrary to section 35 of Law 10/69 by failingto take into consideration the personal files and confidential reports of the parties and instead acted according to section 28 of the same law cannot be accepted. Indeed, the schemeof serviceforthepostinquestionshowsthatitisafirstentrypostand, 15 therefore, the respondents followed the correct procedure.The fact that all candidates were from the service doesnot convert it into apromotion post Moreover, thestatement in theminutesof therespondents -inthe lightof all matenal concerning the candidates» shows that such files were before the respondents.
(2)Theargument thatthestatementintheminutesoftherespondentsthat the views of the Director of Education coincided with the views of the «appropriate authority» (i.e the Minister of Education) affords evidence of interference by the Minister with respondents' discretion must fail, because there is nothing in such minutes, which leads to a conclusion of such 25 682 10 3 C.L.R. Lolzldes v. Republic interference ortoaconclusion that the respondents were influenced by the Minister 5
(3)Asthe post inquestion was αfirst entry post,the respondents werenot bound, notwithstanding the factthat applicant held atthetimeamore senior post than that held bythe interested parties,togive special reasons whythe interestedparties were preferredinstead ofthe applicant Recoursedismissed No orderas tocosts _ Casesreferredto Skarpansv. Republic (1978}3CLH lfl 15 106 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of therespondent toappointthe interested parties to the post of Inspector, 1st Grade, Secondary Education, inpreference andinstead of the applicant. E.Efstathiou, for theapplicant. A.S. Angelides, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant seeks a declaration of the Court that the decision of the respondent published inthe official Gazetteof the Republic No. 717 dated 22.4.77, to appoint to the post of 20 Inspector,1stGrade,Secondary Education,theinterested parties, namely,
- Arts Georghiou and
- Andreas Phylactou, instead of the applicant, isnull and void and of nolegal effect whatsoever. The facts of the case so far as relevant, shortly put are the following: 25 Two vacancies for the post of Inspector 1st Grade Secondary Education for Philological Subjects, were advertised inthe official Gazette of the Republic and nine applications were submitted, including thatof the applicantand thetwo interested parties.The candidates were interviewed by the respondent Committee on 30 28.3.
- At its meeting of 5.4.77, the Directorof Education who was present, expressed hisviewswhich, according totheminutes of the said meeting, coincided with the views of the appropriate authority,totheeffect thatthe interestedpartiesprevailed over the other candidates. 35 The Chairmanandthemembers of theCommitteecametothe conclusion thatinthe light of all the material before themandthe opinion formed at the personal interviews, A. Georghiou and A. 683 Malachto· J. Lolzlde· v. Republic
(1987)Phylactou. the interested parties, were the most suitable for appointment to the post inquestion, and decided and appointed them on probation with effect asfrom 15.4.77. Asa result the applicant filed the present recourse. Tne first argument on behalf of the applicant is that the 5 respondent Committee acted contrary tosection 35 ofthe Public Educational Service Law 1969, Law 10/69, in that they failed to take into consideration the personal files and the confidential reportsof the partiesand instead acted accordingtosection 28of the lawby following the criteriafor first entry posts. 10 It is clear from the relevant scheme of service that the post of Inspectorwasnotapromotion postbutafirstentrypostwhichwas accordingly advertised byvirtue of section 26
(1)of Law 10/69in the official Gazette of the Republic. The fact that all candidates were already inthe educational service does not convert the post 15 into a promotion post, which would require only persons in the immediately lower post toapply. Inthe circumstances, therefore, the procedure followed was the correct one and was in accordance with the Law. Nevertheless, it is clear from the expression appearing intheminutesofthesubjudice decision«in 20 the light of all the material concerning the candidates», that such files were in fact before the respondent Committee. See Costas Skarparisv. The Republic
(1978)3 C.L.R. 106atp. 112. It was further argued that the reference to the «appropriate authority»inthe minutesofthe subjudice decision which inlawis 25 the Minister of Education, is evidence of interference by the Ministerwith the discretion ofthe respondent Committee. There is nothing in the relevant minutes which leads to the conclusionthattherespondentCommitteewereinfluenced bythe views of the «appropriate authority» or that there was any 30 interference by the Minister with the exercise of their discretion. Therefore, thisargument mustalso fail. Finally, it was argued that since applicant held a more senior post to the interested parties, reasons ought to have been given whytheinterestedpartieswerepreferred insteadoftheapplicant. There isno dispute thatthe applicant helda senior post. Inthe present case, however, asthe post inquestion wasa first entry post I consider that there was no requirement for the 684 35 3 C.L.R. Lolzldes v. Republic Malachtos J. respondent Committee to give special reasons as to why the applicant wasnotpreferred although he washoldingatthetimea senior post in the educational service than the two interested parties. 5 In conclusion, I find that it was reasonably open to the respondent Committee to reach the decision complained of and thatthe said decision wasdulyreasoned. Furthermore, Imust say that the applicant failed to establish striking superiority over the interested parties so as to entitle this Court to interfere with the 10 decision of the respondent Committee. Forthe reasonsstatedabove,thisrecoursefailsand isdismissed with no order astocosts. Recoursedismissed. No order astocosts. 685