(1988)1988May26 [A.LOIZOU,P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146 OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASDEMETRIADES, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo.1015185). Public Officers—Appointment siPromotions—First entry and promotion post—Seniority—A factor thatshouldbe takeninto consideration—It may tipthescales,ifotherfactors aremoreorlessequal. Public Officers—Appointments/Promotions—First entry and promotion post—Applicant repeatedlyinthepastrecommendedfor promotiontoother posts—Since suchrecommendations appearinthefiles,theyaredeemedto have beentakenintoconsideration bytheCommission. Public Officers—Appointments/Promotions—First entry and promotion post—Qualifications—Inquiry into—Duty of the Commission—Fact that applicant was considered in thepast as having aparticular qualification neededfor another post—Does notabsolve theCommissionfrom duty to inquire whether hepossesses such qualification requiredfor the subjudicepost. Reasoning of an administrative act—Public Officers—Appointments! Promotions tofirstentryandpromotionposts—Suggestionthatasthedecision toappointtheinterestedparty isdetrimentaltotheapplicant,suchdecision shouldhavebeenspecially reasoned—Suchsuggestionnotaccepted. NaturalJustice—Bias—Public Officers—-AppointmentslPromotionstofirstentryandpromotion posts—Complaint that confidentialreportsweretainted 1034 3 C.L.R. Demetriades v. Republic byreasonofbiasofthereportingofficer—Notsubstantiated. 5 Constitutional Law—Equality—Constitution, Art. 28—Public Officers— Appointments/Promotions to first entry and promotion posts— Qualifications—Complaintofdiscriminatorytreatmentbecauseattheinterview, theapplicantwasexaminedmorethan theothers—Commissionmay validlydoso. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appear intheJudgmentoftheCourt. FinallytheCourtfoundthattheapplicantnotonlyfailed toestablishstrikingsuperiority,butanysuperiorityatallovertheinterestedparty. 10 , Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. Casesreferredto: Maratheftisv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 533. 15 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interestedparty tothepostofDirectorofLabourintheMinistry ofLabourand Social Insuranceinpreference andinsteadof the applicant J.Erotocritou,fortheapplicant. P.Hadjidemetriou, fortherespondent. M.Kyriakides,fortheinterestedparty. Cur.adv. vult. 25 A.LOIZOUP.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantin thisrecourse praysfor adeclaration that thedecision of therespondentCommission topromoteA.Kalhmachos tothepostof DirectorofLabourintheMinistryofLabourandSocialInsurance instead of himself is null and void andof nolegaleffect whatsoever. 1035 A.LoizouP. Demetriadesv. Republic
(1988)Forthepostin question whichisafirst entry andpromotion post sevencandidatesapplied,outofwhichfivewereconsidered by therespondent Commission aspossessing the qualifications required by the Scheme of servicefor thepost and who were therefore invited for aninterviewwhich howeveronly threeat- 5 tended. TheDirector-GeneralofthesaidMinistrywhowaspresentat the interviews and themembersof therespondentCommission questioned the candidates on general matters as well ason the mattersconcerningthedutiesofthepost.TheApplicantwasalso JQ questioned inEnglishinordertoascertain thathisknowledgeof thelanguage wasof therequired undertheSchemestandardi.e. "verygood". Afterwards, havingheardtheviewsandrecommendationsof theDirector-General totheeffect thatboththeapplicant andthe 15 interestedparty weresuitableforthepost,therespondentCommission consideredallthematerialfactorsconcerningthecandidates, theirpersonal files and confidential reports, their performance at the interviews and the seniority by 14years of the interestedpartyovertheapplicantandconcludedthatonthebasis 20 oftheestablishedcriteriatheinterestedpartywassuperiortothe other candidates and the most suitable and decided topromote himtothepostinquestionasfrom the1stSeptember1985. As against this decision the applicant filed the present recourse. 25 ItwascontendedbytheapplicantthattherespondentCommissionfailedtoselectthemostsuitablecandidateforthepost,asthe applicant who held thepost of Chief Labour Officer hadmore versatile duties than the interested party,whoheld thepostof Chief InspectorofFactories,andwasthusmoreabletoperform ™ thedutiesof thepost of Directorof Labour.Forthisreason he also contended that the seniority of the interested party was wrongly takenintoaccountbeingafactorirrelevant tothesuitabilityofthecandidates. 1036 3 C.L.R. \ \ Demetriadesv.Republic A.LoizouP. Fromwhatisbefore meitdoesnot transpirethattheinterested party was anylesscapableof performing the dutiesof thepostof Director. \ As far asthequestionof seniority isconcerned, itis oneofthe 5\ factors which anappointingorgan hastoconsider togetherwith \ meritandqualifications andif allotherthingsareequalitmaytip the scales inacandidate'sfavour. If disregarded itrequires spe cialreasoningtobegiven.Inthiscasethesubstantial seniority of theinterestedparty of forteen years,is inanyevent indicativeof ΙΟ thegreaterexperiencethattheinterestedpartypossesses. It was contendednextthattheapplicanthadonseveralocca sions in thepast been recommendedfor promotionboth in his confidential reportsaswellasby the Director Generalof thesaid Ministry for severalotherexecutive posts.Onthepresumption of 15 regularity andthereis noevidence tothecontrary,thoughsuch recommendations appeartohave been given in respect of other posts,in which case Iwould consider thatthey may berelevant only as regards thoseparticular posts, nonetheless,suchrecom mendationsbeing inhisfiles,which wereatall times before the 2(\ respondentCommission, aredeemedtohavebeensoconsidered. 25 OQ Itwas thenargued thattherespondentCommissionwrongly tookintoconsiderationtheconfidential reportsoftheapplicantfor theyears 1983and1984sincethereportingofficer whocompiled themwas prejudiced against him,therebeing between them professional differences. As far asthereportfor the year 1983isconcernedsincethe al legeddisputeoccurredin 1984 itcouldclearly nothave affected it.As far as the reportfor theyear 1984 is concerned,inthe first placethere is noevidence thatthealleged disputehadany bearing onsuchreport;moreover suchlikelihood is alsoexcluded bythe merefact thatthesamereportingofficer gavehisunconditional recommendationbefore therespondentCommission for this can didate.Suchgroundtherefore fails. 1037 A. Loizou P. Demetriades v. Republic
(1988)Itwasfurther argued thattherespondent Commission byexaminingtheapplicantinmoresubjectsthantheinterestpartyand alsobyexamininghisknowledgeofEnglish actedinadiscriminatorymannerasagainsttheapplicant. Ifindnomeritinthisargument.TherespondentCommission 5 isnotprecludedbutithasadutytocarryoutadueinquiryinordertoascertainwhetheranyonecandidatepossessesthespecified qualifications attherequiredstandardandthisdoesnotamountto discrimination.Thefact thattheapplicant wasconsidered inthe past topossess the samequalifications inrespectof adifferent IQ post does not preclude the Commission from inquiring into it againnordoesit"absolvetheCommissionfromitsdutytosatisfy itselfthatinthepresentinstance,forthisparticularpost,theinterestedparty wasqualified forpromotion."(Maratheftisv.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.533at538). 15 In anycase sinceitwasfound after such inquiry that hedid posses such a qualification the matter is without importance. Moreover,from therecordoftheproceedingsbefore therespondentCommission itdoesnottranspirethattheapplicantwasexaminedmorethantheothers,butevenifhewere,itmayvalidly 20 bedone and may evenbeconsidered tobein acandidate's favour,inordertoenabletherespondenttoproperlyevaluetheparticularcandidatebeforeit. Moreover the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant thatthesub-judicedecision beingtohisdetrimentwasinneedof 25 specialreasoning,cannotstand.Themereselectionofonecandidatedoesnotmeritspecialreasoningandsolongasadequatereasoningexistsinorderthatthevalidityofsuchdecisionmaybejudiciallyexamined,suchdecisionwillbeconsideredbytheCourt asdulyreasoned,asitissoconsideredinthisinstance,suchreasoning appearing in thedecision itself as supplemented by the materialintherelevantfiles. Inconclusion Ifindthatitwasreasonablyopentotherespondent Commisison to select the interested party for the post in 1038 3 C.L.R. Demetriades v. Republic A. Loizou P. question and toconsider him asthe most suitable for the post, suchselectionhavingbeenmadeproperly,without biasandafter dueconsideration of all therelevant material that wasbefore it. The applicant has in my view failedto establish not only any strikingsuperiorityovertheinterestedpartyinordertojustify interference bythisCourtwiththesub-judicedecision,butanysuperiorityatall.Ialsofindthatitexerciseditsdiscretionproperly andwithin thelimits ofthelaw,suchdiscretionbeinginthecircumstancesawideone,thepostbeing ahighexecutivepost * Forthereasons stated abovethisrecoursefails andishereby dismissed, butin thecircumstances therewill benoorder asto costs. Recourse dismissed. Noorderasto costs. 1039