(1987)1987May9 IMAL^CHTOS.J.] INTHE MATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION NICOSCOSTEAS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THE PUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 139/79). PublicOfficers—Appointments/Promotions —Firstentryandpromotion post— Interviews, performance at — One of the factorsthat may be legitimately taken into account. PublicOfficers—Appointments/Promotions —firsfentryandpromotion post— Head of Department — Recommendations of — Need not be specifically invited — Candidates both from his department and from outside — Recommendations, otherthanthoseintheconfidentialreports, mayresultin contravention ofArt.28 oftheConstitutionasregardsoutsiders. ConstitutionalLaw —Equality— Constitution,Art.28 — See PublicOfficers — Appointments/Promotions —firsfentryandpromotion post,ante. 5 10 Bymeans ofthisrecourse theapplicantchallengestheappointment ofthe interestedpartiesStylianouandHailou,insteadofhim,tothepostofAssistant Examiner, inthe Office of the Official Receiverand Registrar, which isa first entry and promotion post, complaining, inter alia, that the respondent Commission attachedundueweighttotheresultsoftheinterviewandthatthe 1 5 Commission failedtoinvitetherecommendationsoftheOfficial Receiverand Registrar. Held, dismissingtherecourse:
(1)TheCommissiontookintoconsideration allrelevant factors, the performance ofthe candidatesattheinterview being only one of the factors considered. In any case such performance could legitimatelybetaken intoaccount.
(2)The Commission was not bound to invite specifically the recommendations of the Head oftheDepartment especiallysinceasregards 686 C.L.R. Costeas v. Republic theapplicant and interested party Stylianou, they were containedintheform of confidential reports Moreover any further recommendations from him mighthave resulted inacontraventionofArt 28of theConstitutionas regards interested party Hailou who was servinginadifferent departmentand would not be able tohave thebenefit of similar recommendationsfrom the Official Receiver
(3)Inthecircumstances thesub judice appointment;.were reasonally open tothe Commission Recoursedismissed No orderas to costs Casesreferredto Kousouhdesv TheRepublic
(1967)3 C LR 438 Sawav Ihe Republic
(1980)3 C LR 675 Recourse. 15 Recourseagainst thedecision of therespondenttopromotethe interested parties tothepost of Assistant Examiner intheOffice of theOfficial Receiver andRegistrar inpreference andinstead ofthe applicant Ε Lemonans, for the applicant 20 G Constantmou — Erotocntou (Mrs), Senior Counsel of the Republic,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 25 respondents' decision toappointthe interested parties Demetnos Hailou and Costas Stylianou tothe post of Assistant Examiner,in theOffice of theOfficial Receiver andRegistrar, inpreference and instead of the applicant, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever 30 The relevant vacancies tothepost inquestion which was a first entry and promotion post, were advertised in the official Gazette of the Republic on the 18 8 78 and in response thereof 33 applications were submitted At itsmeeting of 16 12 78therespondentCommission decided 35 that 12 candidates, including the applicant and the interested parties, be invited for interview on 18 1 79 On that date the respondent Commission, as well as the Official Receiver and Registrar, putseveral questions toall thecandidateson mattersof technical knowledge and on mattersconnectedwith the duties of 687 Malachtos J. Costeas v. Republic
(1987)the postasshown intherelevantscheme ofservice. The respondent Commission considered the merits, qualifications and experience of the candidates interviewed as well as their performance during the interview (personality, alertness of mind, general intelligence and the correctness of 5 answers to questions put to them) the personal files and confidential reports of the candidates already in the service and concluded that the interested parties were on the whole the best and the most suitable for the post and it appointed them to the permanentpostofAssistantExaminerwitheffect asfrom 15.3.79. 10 Asa result, the applicant filed thepresent recourse. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the respondentswereundulyinfluenced bytheresultsoftheinterview and that they failed to give proper weight to the other legal considerations and also failed to invite the recommendations of 15 the Official Receiver and Registrar. It was also argued that the respondent Commission failed in its primary duty to select the most suitable candidate in that theapplicant being alreadyin the Department concerned, was more suitable than the interested partieswho were outsiders. 20 From a perusal of the relevant minutes it is evident that the respondent Commission took into consideration all relevant factors,theperformance ofthecandidatesbeingonlyoneofthose factors so considered which, in any case, may legitimately be taken into account. I also consider that as regards the 25 recommendations of the Official Receiver and Registrar, Icannot hold that the Commission acted improperly, as Ido not think that such recommendations have to be invited specifically, especially since as regards the applicant and interested party Stylianou, theywerecontained intheform ofconfidential reports: 30 See Kousoulides v. The Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R.438atpp.4467. Moreover, any further recommendations from him for this purpose might have resulted in a contravention of Article 28 as interested party Hailou beingina d!ffe**»nt department would not be able to have the benefit of similar recommendations from the 35 Official Receiver. (SeeSawa v.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R. 675 at697). Finally, proceeding to comparison of the parties, as regards merit,theinterested partiesappeartobebetterthanthe applicant. They were rated as excellent and/or very good, whereas the 40 applicant wasrated asverygood and good. 688 3 C.L.R. Costeas v. Republic Malachtos J . The qualifications of the applicant and interested parties are moreorlessthesame.Asregardsseniority,interested partyHailos who worked as Storekeeper, 2nd Grade, in the Department of Stores,issenior (sees.46
(3)ofthe PublicService Law1967,Law 5 33 of 1967), and interested party Stylianou, who held the same postsasthe applicant, that ofClericalAssistant inthe Department of Official Receiver and Registrar, has the same seniority as the applicant. I tind. therefore, that in the circumstances it was reasonably 10 open to the respondent Commission in its effort to appoint the mostsuitablecandidateforthepost,toselecttheinterested parties instead of the applicant, who has failed to establish any striking superiority in order that this Court may be justified to disturb the subjudicedecision complained of. 15 For the above reasons, this recourse fails and is hereby dismissed, with no orderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. No order ast*> costs. 689