3 CX.R. ' '1988 May21 [PIKIS, J.] ' INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ' 1.CHARALAMBOS STYLIANOU, . , 2 . ANDREAS ARISTODEMOU, \ ι Applicants, v. THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, . Respondents. . (Consolidated CasesNos. 365/87and519/87). Public Officers—Promotions—Head of Department-Recommendations— Constituteanadditionalsourceofinformation regarding meritandsuitabtli- tyofcandidates. Public officers—Promotions—Qualifications—Commission thearbiters offact finding process of theirelicitation—ifaninquiryis adequate, their findings will not be faulted unless they were not reasonably open to them— Addressing specificquestionnairetotheDepartmentalCommittee—Having received theanswers,itwas,inthecircumstancesreasonably open tothem • toconcludethatallcandidatespossessedtherequiredqualifications. Thefactsof thiscaseappearsufficiently inthejudgmentof theCourt. 10 '' ,. .Casesreferredto: ·, , Recourses dismissed. .. Thalassinos v.Tte Republic
(1973)3C.L.R.386;• Christoudias v. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R. 657; 1007 Stylianou & Another v. Republic
(1988)Demetriadesv.TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 2473; GeorghiouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.
- Recourses. Recourses against thedecision oftherespondents topromote theinterestedpartiestothepostofAirportInspectorinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. E.Efstathiou, for applicantinCaseNo.365/
- Ph.Valiantis, forapplicantinCaseNo.519/
- P.Hadjidemetriou,fortherespondents. Cur. adv. vult. PIKISJ.read thefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantsandthe twointerested parties werecandidatesfor promotion tothepost of Airport Inspector (promotion post).They were,among five candidates,recommended bythedepartmentalcommitteeaseligibleand suitableforpromotion.Before evaluatingtheirreportthe PublicServiceCommission soughtelicitationofoneaspectofit concerning the inquiry of the departmental committee into the knowledgeofthecandidatesoftheEnglishlanguage.Thescheme of servicerequiredverygoodknowledgeofEnglishasoneofthe qualifications forpromotion.Theyrepliedthatallrecommended candidatessatisfied theaforementioned requirementofthescheme of service.Nospecific referencehadbeenmadetothataspectof theschemeof servicebecause,asitwasexplained,itappearedto themfairly obviousthateachoftherecommendedcandidateshad verygoodknowledgeoftheEnglishlanguage.Asimilarqualification waspostulatedasaprerequisiteforappointmenttotheposition ofAirport Assistant second grade.Allthecandidateshad passedthedepartmental examination setinEnglishforappointment orpromotion topositions lowerin thehierarchical ladder, signifying an appropriate level of knowledge of English. Their 1008 3 C.L.R. \ 5 \ \ \ 10 15 20 2<τ OQ Stylianou & Another v. Republic PikisJ, daily work, ontheotherhand, demandedamenity tousethe Eng lishlanguage atafairly high level.ThePublic ServiceCommis sion was evidently satisfied thatallrecommendedcandidateswere eligiblefor promotion;andthey proceeded tomake their selection · Before evaluating therivalmeritsof thecandidatestheyheard theviewsof Mr.Herodotou, theHeadof theDepartment. What Mr.Herodotouimparted totherespondents was thatuponcon sideration of themerits,qualifications andseniority of the candi dates,theinterestedparties,namely,VassosGeorghiouand Vassos Theocharous,werebestqualified toassume thedutiescarried by thepost. Charalambos Stylianou, the applicant in Recourse No.365/87,confined his challenge tothepromotionof only one of thetwointerested parties,namely VassosTheocharous.Put in a nutshell, his objections werethattherespondents,in choosing theinterestedparty,abused theirpowers by ignoring thesuperior. merits and seniority of theapplicant compared totheinterested party.When required toarticulate this statement,propounded in hiswritten addressby reference tothematerialuponwhich it was founded, notably theconfidential reports,counselfeltconstrained to acknowledge that that statement was incorrect so far as the meritsof thetwocandidateswereconcerned.Hisfinal appraisal of therival merits of theparties, as defined in their respective confidential reports is, thatthey aremoreorlessequal.Counsel for theRepublic submitted thattherevised assessment, too,is contradictedby thematerial uponwhich it is allegedly founded, notably thecontentof theconfidential reports for theparties for thefiveyearsimmediately precedingthepromotion. Examination.of theconfidential reports themselves bears out counselof theRepublic andasamatterof fact theconfidentialre portsontheinterested party weremorefavourable thanthose on theapplicant.This superiority was reinforced by the recommen dationof theHeadof theDepartmentthatconstituted an.addiuonal source of information onthemerits and suitability of the candi datesfor promotion.(See, interalia,Thalassinosv.fTheRepublic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 386; Chistoudias v. The Republic
(1984)3 1009 PikisJ. Stylianou &Another v.Republic
(1988)C.L.R. 657; Demetriades v. The Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 2473).' Itisacknowlegedthattheapplicantandinterestedpartyhadthe same length of service in government. Nonetheless, applicant was seniorbecause he was25months older than theinterested 5 party.Therefore, hewasseniortotheinterestedpartyinaccordance withtheprovisions of s.46
(7)of thePublic ServiceLaw. Counsel for the Republic pointed out that seniority originating fromthedistantpastisafactoroflittlesignificance,inaccordance with the majority decision of theSupreme Court in Georghiou andOthersv.Republic.
(1988)3C.L.R.678. Thisisnotaprop- 10 ercasetoexamine theimplicationsofthedecisioninGeorghiou, supra.Icontentwithnotingthattherespondentsdiddirectthemselvesspecifically totheorderofseniorityofthecandidatesand nonethelesschosetheinterestedparty.Inthelightofthematerial before them,itwasattheleastreasonablyopentothemtochoose 15 VassosGeorghiou. Itthelightofthisconclusion Recourse365/ 87mustbedismissed. ^ AndreasAristodemou,theapplicant in RecourseNo.519/87, challenges thepromotion of both interested parties. Oneof the grounds upon which thechallenge wasfounded wasabandoned 20 afterexplanationthatthenumbersinthemarginnexttothenames of thecandidatesrecommended bythedepartmentalcommittee, merelyservedtoidentify themonthelistofcandidates. Theinadequacyoftheinquiryoftherespondentsintotheeligibility ofthecandidates with particularreference totheirknowl- 25 edgeofEnglishisyet,inthecontentionofcounsel,anotherreason vitiating the sub-judice decision. It is evident from the correspondence between thePublicServiceCommissionandthe departmental committeethattherespondentsdirectedthemselves specifically totheeligibilityofthecandidatesforpromotionunder theschemeof service,andwereeventually satisfied thatall five 30 candidates wereeligible inviewoftheletterof thechairmanof thedepartmentalcommitteedated5.2.87.Evidently,therespondentsespoused theviewsof thedepartmentalcommitteeasthey 1010 3 C.L.R. Stylianou & Another v. Republic Pikis J. were entitled to do, and, found that the candidates satisfied the relevantprovision of theschemeof service. 5 JQ 15 2 ^ 25 30 The Public Service Commission are the arbiters of the factfinding processrelevant totheelicitation of thequalifications of the candidates. And so long as the inquiries made are adequate, their findings will not befaulted unless it appears that they were not reasonably open to them. It isclear that therespondents did notin any way relinquish their powers or subordinate theirdecision to that of the departmental committee, an advisory body. Therefore, they addressed a specific questionnaire tothe departmentalcommittee,asthey wereentitled todo,inordertoelicit the foundation of their advice on the eligibility of the candidates. Havingreceived theirexplanation itwasperfectly opentothem to conclude,asthey haddone,thatallfivecandidates were qualified under theschemeof service. Thedecision ofthePublic ServiceCommission is ,inthesubmission of counsel,alsoindefensible on areviewof itsmerits,liabletobe set asidefor disregardof the seniority ofthe applicant over the interested parties,extending to noless than three years. As the rating of the applicant and the interested parties in their confidential reports was approximately similar arid they had like qualifications, the seniority of the applicant ought to have been decisive. The submission is founded, as counsel·for the respondents observed, on a misconception of the content of the confidentialreports.Examination of theconfidential reportsrevealsthe interestedparties asmoremeritoriouscandidates.Their superiorityinthisregard becameallthegreater inview oftheirrecommendation bytheHead oftheDepartment. Asinthecaseof applicant Charalambos Stylianou, therespondentshavingadverted toevery consideration relevant tothetakingof the sub-judice.decision, it was,inthelight of thematerial before them,at theleastreasonablyopen tothemtoselect theinterested parties. Recourse No. 519/87,too,must bedismissed. 35 Intheresult,eachoneof thetwoconsolidatedrecoursesisdismissed.Thesub-judice decision isconfirmed pursuant totheprovisionsofarticle 146.4(a)of theConstitution. Recourses dismissed. 1011