(1988)1988May31 ΙΑ.LOEOU. P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION CHRISTAKISN.SERGHIDES ANDANOTHER, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CasesNo. 246185,433/85). PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidential reports—Reportspriorto1979 compiledby anofficer, who was nottheheadoftheDepartment—Failure tocountersignthem—Promotionseffectedin1984—Irregularityofsuchre portsoccurredin toodistantintime toaffectsubjudicepromotions. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidential reports—Rating of"average"— Notadverse in the sense ofsection 45
(4)ofthePublicServiceLaw, 1967 (Law33/67), if it does not attributefault ortackofinterest totheofficer concerned. PublicOfficers—The PublicOfficers (Restructuring ofCertain Offices and OtherConnectedMatters)Law,1984(Law20/84),section20—Ambitof. PublicOfficers—Promotions—HeadofDepartment—Recommendations—Not followed, because ofthe superiormeritofinterestedparty—Decision up held. Public Officers-Promotions—Seniorityof71/2years—Superiorityinmeritof the interestedparty—Despite such seniority, inthe circumstances it was reasonablyopen totheCommissiontopromote theinterestedparty. Public Officers—Promotions—Qualifications—Due inquiry—"Very good knowledge ofEnglish"—Whole careerofcandidatesbefore the Commis- 1116 3 C.L.R. Serghides & Another v. Republic sion—Evidenttherefromthattheinterestedpartyhadtherequiredknowledge—ReasonablyopentotheCommissiontoarriveattherelevantfinding, 5 10 15 20 Public Offcers—Promotions—Qualifications—Due inquiry—Failure to rate candidatesfor "leadership"fortheyear1980,butratingthemfor theyears 1981,1982and1983—Complaintthatintheabsenceofratingin1980the interestedpartywaswrongly consideredaspossessing relevantability— Complaintunfounded—Ifitweretobeupheld,applicantswouldlacklegitimateinterest. Public Officers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Circular491/79relating totheirpreparation—ReportscompiledbyHeadofDepartmentalone— HeadofDepartmenthaddirectknowledgeandsupervisionoftheratedofficers—Reportsnotcontrarytoaforesaidcircular. PublicService—Salaries—Generalrevisionof, inthewholeofthepublicserviceasopposedtotheupgradingorregradingofaparticularpostorgroup ofposts—Thepracticefollowedineachofsuch casepriortothe coming intooperationoftheconstitution. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Qualifications-—Schemeofservice—"Service" inapostrequiredasqualification—Severalofthedutiesofthepostnotassignedtotheholderofthepost—Thisisnot thefault ofthe officerandit cannotbesaidthathedidnothave "service"inthepost. TheprinciplesexpoundedbytheCourt indismissing theserecourses sufficiently appearinthehereinaboveheadnotes. Recoursesdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 25 Casesreferredto: Kolokotronisv. TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.418; Constantinidouv.TheRepublic
(1974)3C.L.R.416; Christouv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2237; 30 Republicv. Pericleous
(1984)3C.L.R. 577; Loucasv. TheRepublic
(1965)3CLA.65; PetridesandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.1166. 1117
(1988)Serghides&Another v.Republic Recourses. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interested party to the post of Chief Fisheries Assistant in the FisheriesServiceinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. A.S.Angelides, for applicant inCaseNo.246/
- 5 E.Markides(Mrs), forapplicantinCaseNo.433/
- D.Papadopoulou(Mrs),fortherespondent. Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOUP.read thefollowingjudgment.Bythepresent recourses whichweretried togetherastheypresentcommon is- ,Q sues of law andfact theapplicantsprayfor adeclaration ofthe CourtthatthedecisionoftherespondentCommissiontopromote C. Christofides to the post of Chief Fisheries Assistant in the Fisheries Service,is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. Asthepostin question isapromotion post from thepostof SeniorFisheries Assistant,alist oftheeligibleofficers forpromotion was sent to the Departmental Board together with their confidential reports and copiesofthe schemeof servicefor the post.TheDepartmentalBoardfromthematerialbeforeitdecided that out of the four candidates thethree possessed therequired qualifications that is 1.Chr. Sergides,2.A. Keleshisand 3.C. Christofides, i.e.thetwoapplicantsandtheinterestedparty. Subsequently, the respondent Commission met on the 28.12.84andheard theviewsandrecommendationsoftheHead of the Fisheries Service. He recommended A. Keleshis whois themost senioranddescribed himasquiteexperienced whohas hadhistraining,isprofessional andhasinitiative. Hefurther statedthattheEnglishofallthecandidatesarevery1118 3C.L.R. Serghides &Another v.Republic A.LoizouP. goodanddescribedtheiroutputfor 1984asfollows: "Sergides:Aboutthesameas1983 Christofides:Hisoutputwasslightlyreduced Keleshis:Aboutthesameas1983." SubsequentlytherespondentCommissionexaminedthematerial factorsfromthefileofthefillingofthepostandfromthecandidates'personal files and confidential reports, considered the conclusionsoftheDepartmentalBoardandtheviewsand recommendationsoftheHeadofDepartment.Italsonotedthatthecon10 fidential reports of Christofides were the best of the threeand wereclosetobeingexcellent. SergideswasthemostseniorfollowedbyChristofides andlastbyKeleshis. Therespondent Commissionconsideredthatitcouldnotadopt therecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartment concerning 15 thepromotionofKeleshisbecauseChristofides hadbetterconfidentialreportswhichwereclosetobeingexcellenteventhough hisoutpoutin 1984wasslightlyreduced,nonethelesshewasstill ofahigherstandard thanKeleshisandwasmoreover moresenior.Asfar asthehigherqualifications ofKeleshiswereconcered 20 thoughtheyweretakenintoconsideration yetsincetheywerenot required by the schemeof service,they could not constitutean advantage.Finally asregardstheseniority by7 1/2 yearsofSergidesoverChristofides, therespondentCommission considered thatitcouldnotoverrideChristorides'superiority.Inconclusion, 25 therespondent Commission decidedtopromoteChristofides as themost suitablefor thepostinquestion.Hencethe applicants filed thepresentrecourses. 1 30 Applicant Serghides in Recourse No.246/85contended that the interested party lacked the qualifications required by the Schemeofservice,thatis"verygoodknowledge,ofEnglish"and "administrativeandorganisingability". 1119 A.Loizou P. Serghides &Another v.Republic
(1988)Thepossessionoftherequiredqualifications wasexaminedby theDepartmentalBoardwhichconsideredthatthoserecommendedbyitdidpossesssuchqualifications.Thematterwasalsoconsidered by the respondent Commission. In the first place, the wholecareerofthecandidates,asappearingintheirpersonalfiles 5 andconfidential reportswasbefore therespondent Commission wherefrom it was evident that the interested party did possess such qualifications. (See Kolokotronis v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 418 at p.426).Furthermore, theirHead of Department whohadclosepersonalknowledgeofallcandidates,whenheap- ,Q pearedbefore therespondentCommission stated thattheEnglish ofallthecandidateswasverygood. Intheparticularcircumstancesofthiscase,Ifindthereforethat itwasreasonablyopentotherespondentCommissiontoconsider thatonthematerialithadbeforeit, thecandidatespossessed the ,<requiredknowledgeofEnglish.IdonotconsiderthattherespondentCommission merely adoptedthefindingsoftheDepartmental Board, or the statement of theHead of Department without themselvesconductingadueinquiryandIthereforefindthatthis argumentoftheapplicantsmustfail. As far as thequestion of theinterested party possessing administrative and organising ability is concerned all candidates priortothesub-judicepromotionsheldthepostof SeniorFisheriesAssistantwhichisapostwithdutiesaccordingtoitsScheme of Serviceinvolvingability tocontrolandsupervise subordinate staff, initiative andresponsibility. Asfar astheargument ofthe applicant that the interested party not having beenrated for the item "leadership" in thereports of 1980isconcerned, hecould notasaresultpossess such ability,Ifind,from aperusalofthe relevantreports,thatnoneofthecandidatesincludingthepresent 30 applicantsandtheinterestedparty,weresoratedinthatyearand thatmoreoverfortheyears 1981to1983theapplicantswereratedasgoodwhereastheinterestedpartywasratedasverygoodas regards"leadership". IfIweretoupholdtheaboveargumentsoftheapplicantsthey 35 1120 3 C.L.R. Serghides & Another v. Republic A.Loizou P. themselves would equally not possess such qualification and would thus lack thenecessary legitimate interest tofiletheserecourses -(Constantinidou v.Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 416). 5 It was next contended that theconfidential reports were contrary toLaw,havingbeencompiled bytheDirectorof theFisheries Servicealonewhointhecaseof theapplicantinRecourseNo. 246/85 did not have personal knowledge and supervision of the work of this applicant. It was further argued that this applicant had been evalued as average in hisreports without having been given prior warning. 10 15 2Q 25 30 35 Iconsider that theconfidential reports inquestion arequitein order.Despite thefact thatthereportsof allparties werecompiled bytheirHeadofDepartment, sincesuch person haddirectknowledge and supervision of theirworkitwas neithercontrary toLaw nor tothe circular of the 26.3.1979 No.491 or any General Orders, for such person tobebothreportingand countersigning officer. As far as thereportsprior to 1979areconcerned when the reporting officer was not the Head of the Department but the FisheriesOfficer, whichreportsdonotappear tohavebeencountersigned byanyofficer superior tothereporting officer, Iwould consider, if it were to be found that they were irregular in any way thatthey aretoodistant intimevis avisthesubjudicedecision tohaveaffected itsvalidity. Asfar as theargument of this applicant isconcerned, that havingbeenevaluated as "average",heshould havebeen warned, I alsofindthat it iswithout merit. There isnorequirement to give priorwarningtoanofficer ifhisreportisnotanadverseone(See: Christou v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2237 at 2241-2242);and a ratingofanofficer asaverageisnotconsidered asanadverseone under section 45
(4)of thePublic ServiceLaw 1967(Law No.33 of 1967);andparagraph 11oftheCircularof 1979imposing are-quirementofwarningmustbereadinthelightoftheparticularprovisions of Law No. 33 of 1967.Arating of average which does notdisplay any lack of interestorfault on behalf of anofficer but onlyreferstosuchofficer's capabilities doesnotrender adversea reportcontaining it 1121 A.LoizouP. Serghides &Another v.Republic
(1988)AsfarasRecourseNo.433/85isconcernedthefollowing furtherargumentswereput forward. It wascontended that the respondent Commission wrongly consideredthattheinterestedpartywasaneligiblecandidatesince the applicant in thisrecourse satisfied therequirement of three 5 yearsserviceinthepostofSeniorFisheriesAssistant;therespondentCommissioncouldnothavepromotedanyofficer onthebasisoftheprovisototheschemeofService,sincetheapplicability ofsuchprovisowasdependantonthenonexistenceofcandidates with3yearsserviceinthepostofSeniorFisheriesAssistant. JQ Itwasallegedthattheinterestedpartyhavingbeenpromotedto thepostofSeniorFisheriesAssistanton 15.1.82,hadonthedate the request for thefillingof thepost wasreceived, that is,the 16.8.84,(Republic v.KaterinaPericleous
(1984)3CL.R. 577) less than the three years required by the scheme. On the other 15 hand,on thatdatetheapplicantdidhavetherequiredthreeyears havingbeenappointedtothepostofMasterFishermanon1.1.73 the title (and salary) of which waschanged toSeniorFisheries Assistanton 1.1.84byvirtueof thePublicOfficers (Restructuringof Certain Offices andotherConnected Matters)Law 1984 20 (LawNo.20of 1984),asaresultofwhichheisdeemedtohave heldthepostofSeniorFisheriesAssistantasfrom1.1.73. Iconsider this argument to bewithout merit as section 4of LawNo.20of 1984provides,interalia,asfollows: " apublic officer holding immediately prior tothe 25 appointeddateanypostfrom thoseappearingin thefirstcolumnofScheduleC,whichisreplacedbythepostappearingin its second column, is emplaced from the appointed date or from thedateofhisappointment/promotion tohisoldpostappearinginthefirstcolumnofthesaidSchedule,whicheverof «n suchdatesisthelater..." Theaforesaid provisionsofthelawleavenodoubtthatthe relevantdateinthepresentinstance,beingthelater,isthe"appoint1122 3 C.L.R. 5 Serghides&Another v.Republic A.LoizouP. eddate"accordingtothelawthatisthe1.1.1984anditisonthat date thatthepostof thisapplicant wasreplaced.Hisargument therefore mustfail ashedoesnothavethethreeyearsservicein thepostof SeniorFisheriesAssistant,asallegedandtherespondent Commission therefore wasentitled to selectcandidateson thestrengthoftheproviso. RelevanttothisissueIwouldalsoconsiderthecaseofLoucas v. TheRepublic
(1965)3C.L.R. 65 where the following was statedatpp.70-71:- 10 15 20 30 35 "Inthecaseof ageneralrevision of salariesi.e.wherethe salary structureof thewholeof thepublic serviceisrevised, theCourtissatisfiedthatthepracticewhichhadbeenfollowed insuchcasesbeforethecomingintooperationoftheConstitutionwasthatapublicofficer shouldenterhisnewscaleatthe pointhewouldhavereachedifthenewscalehadbeeninforce sincehisappointmenttothepostinquestion.Where,however,thechangeof salary wasduenottoageneralrevisionbut toanupgradingorregrading of aparticularpostorgroupof postsi.e. wasan individualclassrevision asdistinct from a generalrevision ithasbeenestablished tothesatisfaction of theCourtthattheprocedurethenfollowed wastheprocedure laiddowninColonialRegulation37ofthe1956Editionofthe ColonialRegulationswhichwas,generallyspeaking,tothe effect that,ifanofficer's oldsalarywaslessthantheminimum ofthenewsalarythentheofficer drewtheminimumsalaryof thenewpost;iftheoldsalarywasnot,however,lessthanthe minimumofthenewsalarythentheofficer continuestodraw his salary until,bylength of service,heearnsenough increments which would bring his salary to the next incremental stepinthenewsalaryscale." J Onthepointofqualifications itwasfurther arguedonbehalf ofthisapplicantthattheinterestedpartyhavingbeenassigneddutiesother than those specified in the schemeof service for the posthadno"service"assuchinthepostof SeniorFisheriesAs-' sistant,asreference to"service"inaschememeansactualexer1123 A.Loizou P. Serghides & Another v.Republic
(1988)ciseofthedutiesofthepostandnotmerelyholdingsuchpost Inthefirstplace,sinceintherelevant schemeofservicethere isprovision thatanofficer holding suchpostistoperform alsb "anyotherdutiesthatmaybeassignedtohim"itcannotbecon* sideredthattheinterestedpartywasnotperforming thedutiesof 5 hispost.Secondlyitisnofaultofanofficer whoperformsduties assigned tohimbyhissuperiors,if there aredutiesspecified in hisschemeofservicewhichhavenotbeenassignedtohim;such mattercannotbeheldagainsthimnorexcludehimfrompromotion. See Conclusions of theDecision of theGreekCouncil of JQ State 1929-1959 p. 341-342; Petrides & Othersv.Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1166.Furthermore the fact that in certain instancesthetimespentabroadoneducationalleavebyanofficer is considered as service up toamaximumof twoyears alsodoes notsupporttheviewoftheapplicant.Thisgroundalsofails. ,c For all theabovereasons Ifind that the sub-judice decision wasproperlyreached,after adueinquiryandinaccordancewith theLawandisdulyreasoned.Therecoursesthereforefailandare herebydismissedbutinthecircumstancestherewillbenoorder astocosts. 20 Recoursesdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1124