clr/1988/1988_3_1181.pdf

(1988)PublicOfficers-Promotions—Qualifications—Thesuperiorityofthequalificationsofacandidatevisavisthoseofanothercannotbejudgedbyreferencetothedate,whentheywereobtained. Public Officers—Promotions—Seniority—Prevails whenotherfactors are moreorlessequal. 5 PublicOfficers—Promotions—HeadofDepartment—Recommendations—A factorrelatingtomerit—Cannotbetightlydisregarded. Public Officers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Changeseffectedbythe reportingofficerhimself—Donotamounttoirregularity. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Changeseffectedbythe countersigningofficer—Presumptionofregularity. Public Officers—Promotions—Confidential reports—Changes effectedby countersigningofficer—Whether,ifirregular,mustofnecessityleadtoannulmentofthepromotions—Questiondeterminedinthenegative—Republic v.Argyrides

(1987)3CL.R. 1092 explained. 15 PublicOfficers—Promotions—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable. Generalprinciplesofadministrativelaw—Presumptionofregularity—Public Officers—Confidentialreports—Changeseffectedbycountersigningofficer, who recorded his remarks underPart V of the relevantform— inferencethathemust havediscussedthechangeswiththereportingoffi- 20 cer. Thefactsofthiscase,inwhichtheCourtconcludedthatonthetotality ofthematerialbefore it,itwasreasonablyopentotheCommissiontoreach thesubjudiccdecision,sufficiently appearinthejudgmentoftheCourt. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 25 Casesreferredto: Thalassinosv. TheRepublic

(1973)3CL.R.386; Christoudiasv.TheRepublic

(1984)3C.LA.657; Demetriadesv.TheRepublic

(1986)3C1.R.2473; 1182 an 10 3 CL.R. Georghiadou v. Republic Gavrielv. TheRepublic

(1971)3OLA. 185; Mettasv. TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R.250; Leonidouv. TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 1918; Spanosv. TheRepublic

(1985)3CL.R. 1826; Republicv.Argyrides

(1987)3CL.R. 1092; Papatryfonos v.TheRepublic,

(1987)3CLA. 1882; Republic v.Rousos

(1987)3CL.R. 1217; Partellidesv. TheRepublic

(1969)3CLA. 480; Republic v.Pericleous

(1984)3CLA. 557; 10 Mikellidesv.ΓΑ*Republic

(1981)3CL.R.461; Georghiadesv. TheRepublic

(1967)3CL.R.633; Mitidesv. TheRepublic

(1983)3CLA. 1096; Kastellanosv. TheRepublic

(1986)3CLA. 1014; Ktorides v.TheRepublic

(1983)3CLA.171; J5 Theodossiou v.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C44; Republic v.//oris

(1985)3CLA 106. Recourse. 20 Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespodenttopromotethe interestedparty tothepostofSisterintheDepartmentofMedical andPublicHealthServicesinpreferenceandinsteadoftheappli-. cant. 1183 Georghiadou v.Republic

(1988)Chr. Clerides,for theapplicant A. Papasavvas,SeniorCounsel of theRepublic, for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. KOURRISJ. read thefollowingjudgment. Bythisrecourse, 5 theapplicantchallengesthedecisionofthePublicServiceCommission topromote theinterested partiestothepostof Sisterin theDepartment of Medical andPublicHealth Servicesas from 20.4.1986inpreference andinsteadoftheapplicant. TheinterestedpartiesareEleniPsalti,AnnaChrysafi,Anastas- 10 siaChr.Markidou,KaterinaPapayianniamdDomnikiKourousi-. dou. Thepostinquestionisapromotionpostandbeforethesubjudicedecisiontheapplicantandtheinterestedpartieswereholding thepostofStaff Nurse, 1stGrade. PursuanttoarequestmadebytheDirector-GeneraloftheMinistryofHealthtothePublicServiceCommissionforthefillingof 33vacant posts in the postof Sister ("Adelfi"), therespondent Commission referred themattertotheDepartmental Committee which wasset upfor thatpurposeinaccordancewiththeprovi- 20 sionsofs.36ofthePublicServiceLaw, 1967(Law33/67)toinvestigateandadviseonthequalifications andsuitabilityofcandidatesforpromotiontotheabovepostintheMedicalDepartment of the Civil Service.Thedepartmental committee byitsreport, whichwassubmittedtotherespodentCommissionbyletterdated 25 25.2.1986,recommended 69candidatesoutof 105aseligiblefor promotiontothepostinquestion,includingalltheinterestedparties.TheapplicantwasnotincludedinthislistTheDepartmental Committeestatedthattheywereindoubtwhethertheapplicantas wellasanother6candidatespossessedtherequiredqualifications 30 for thepostinquestion andtheyleft themattertobedecidedby thePublicServiceCommission. 1184 3 CL.R. 5 Georghiadou v. Republic Kourris J. •Therespondent Commission atits meeting of 3.3.1986 con­ sideredthereportoftheDepartmentalCommitteeanddecidedthat theapplicantaswellastheothersix candidatespossessedthe re­ quired qualifications for promotionandincludedtheminthelist forpromotiontogetherwith thecandidatesrecommendedaseligi­ blefor promotiontothepostinquestion. Thefinalmeetingof therespondentCommission tookplaceon 10.3.

1. The Headof the Departmentwas present and was asked by therespondentCommission totakeintoconsiderationin ΙΟ expressing his recommendations,in addition to the candidates whichthedepartmentalcommitteerecommended, thesevencan­ didatesincludingtheapplicantwhich thedepartmentalcommittee failed torecommend. Theheadofdepartmentmadehis recommedations and left. After thedeparture of theHeadof thedepart,c mem, therespondentCommission, having assessedthematerial before them, including theconfidential reportsof thecandidates, theirpersonal files, their seniority, andin thelight of theviews expressed by theheadof thedepartment, theydecidedtopromote 33 candidates tothepostof sister as from 15.3.
2. Theappli2" cantwas notpromoted,andfeeling aggrieved,filed thepresent recourse. ^ 30 35 Thefirst pointraised by counsel for theapplicant is thatthe procedureinpromotingtheinterestedpartiesis against allprinci­ ples of goodandsoundadministrationandassuchitnullifies the subjudice decision. Hecontended, thattherespondentcommis­ sionwhenitreachedtheconclusion thatthe7candidates, includ­ ing theapplicant,werefulfilling therequirements of thescheme of service, they shouldhaverequested thedepartmentalcommit­ teetoconsider thepositionof the7candidatesandmaketheirrecommendations on themafter comparing them with all there­ maining candidates whowererecommendedfor promotion. In­ stead, he said, they decided thattheDirectorof Medical Public Health Services, as Headof theDepartment,should becalled to attendthemeetingandmakehisrecommendations.By following this procedure, he said, the candidates were deprived of the chanceof being recommendedby thedepartmentalcommittee 1185 Κoilrris J. Georghiadou v. Republic

(1988)specifically set upfor thispurpose. Also,bydoing this the Com­ mission violated theprinciples of equal treatmentinthis respect Idonotthinkthatthispointcanstandbecause thePublic Ser­ vice Commission rightly did not send back to thedepartmental committeefor consideration thenamesof thesevencandidatesin- 5 eluding theapplicant,after itdecidedthattheyfulfilled the qualifi­ cationsenvisa*edby theschemeof service. Therecommendationsof thedepartmentalcommitteeare advi­ sory innatureandthey do notbind thePublic ServiceCommis­ sion. (See Thalassinos v. The Republic

(1973)3 CL.R. 10 386; Christoudias v. TheRepublic

(1984)3CL.R.657; Demetriadesv. TheRepublic

(1986)3CL.R. 2473. In theChristoudiascase (supra), itwas heldthat"As amatter of statutory law andproperadministrative practice,neitherthees-. tablishment of anadvisorycommitteenorsolicitation of itsviews 15 on thesuitability of candidatesentails abdication of the substan­ tivecompetencevestedintheappointing bodyordivestiture of its powers; thattherecommendationsof thedepartmentalcommittee arenotbindingonthePublic Service Commission." It should be noted thattheheadof thedepartment was asked 20 by therespondent Commission totake intoconsideration in ex­ pressinghis views andrecommendations, inaddition tothe can­ didates thatthedepartmentalcommitteerecommended, the7 can­ didates including theapplicantwhich thedepartmentalcommittee failed toconsider. In conclusion, the respondent Commission at its very first meeting, after they received thereportof thedepartmentalcom­ mittee,theydecided thattheapplicantaswellastheothersix can­ didates possessedthequalifications envisaged by the scheme of serviceandattheirmeeting on 10.3.1986whentheyconvened to 30 make thepromotions,they asked thehead of thedepartment to expresshis viewsandrecommendationsincluding the applicant andtheother6candidates. 1186 25 3 CL.R. Georghiadou v.Republic Kourris J. In myview,theprocedurefollowed by therespondent Com­ mission was theproperoneanditdidnotviolate theprincipleof equaltreatmentinthisrespect. 5 10 15 20 2^ τη Inow propose todeal with therecommendationsof the Head of theDepartmentwhichwerechallenged by counsel for theap­ plicant. The complaint of counsel for the applicant is, thatthe headof thedepartmentwhenheappearedbefore therespondent commission on 10th March, 1986, made oral representations which wereof avery general natureandthatnodetailswere givenas towhy theapplicantwas notrecommendedforpromotion. Further,hecontended,thatheobtainedinformationfrom thesen­ ior sisters with regard to theperformance of the candidates as staff nurses andhefailed torecordtheopinionsof theseniorsis­ ters. There is alsocomplaint thatthe Commission should have takenintoconsiderationtheviewsof theheadof the department andnottheviewsof thesenior sisters.Furthermore,hesaidthat itdoes notappearwhether theHeadof thedepartmentknew all thecandidatesorsomeofthem. Iholdtheviewthatthereis noviolation of thelaw of theregulationswhen theheadof thedepartmentmadeoralrecommenda­ tionsbefore therespondentcommission. (SeeGeorghiosGavriel v. TheRepublic

(1971)3 CL.R. 185). Therehas been noviolation of thelaw orof any regulations with regard toobtaining information about thecandidates from hissubordinates inordertoappraisehimself ofthecapabilities of thecandidatesintheabsence ofpersonal knowledge. (SeeMettas v. TheRepublic,

(1985)3 CL.R.250 atp. 256). Therespondentcommissionrightlydidnotask theheadof the departmentwhatweretheviewsof theseniorsistersandputtheir viewsandrecommendationsdown inwriting. Thereis nolaw or. regulation entitling the respondent commission to regard the views of thesubordinates of the head of the department, from whomheobtains information. 1187 Κourris J. Georghiadou v. Republic

(1988)Again,lack of personal knowledge onthepanof theHeadof Department of all thecandidates is nota factor preventing him fromexpressinganopiniononthevalue of theservicesandsuita­ bility of thecandidates for promotion. SeeLeonidou v. TheRe­ public

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1918, where it was held that "lack of 5 knowledge of candidates is notanobstacle preventing him from reporting on thecandidateprovided hemakes thenecessary in­ quiries in his department" (See also Spanos v. TheRepublic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 1826). With regard to the recommendationsof thehead of depart- IQ ment,it isrecorded intheminutesof 10.3.1986thathemadehis recommendations withregardtotherecognizedcriteriaintheirto­ tality, thatis merit,qualifications, seniority. Forall thesereasons,thisgroundfails. Counselfor theapplicantalleged thatthesubjudicedecisionis 15 liable tobeset aside for irregularity inthe preparationof thecon­ fidential reportofinterestedpartyKourousidoufor theyear 1981 andof theconfidential reportof interestedpartyMarkidouforthe years 1980 and 1983.Hecontendedthatthecountersigning offi­ cerchanged certainitemsintheconfidential reportswithouthav- 20 ing discussed thechanges with thereportingofficer. Hereliedon the case of Republicv.Argyrides

(1987)3 CL.R. 1092 where theFullBenchdecided thatstrictobservance of theprovisions of Regulation 9of thecircularpertainingtoconfidential reportsisa conditionprecedenttotheirvalidity andthatanydeparturethere- ~c from taintsthereport with illegality andresultsinbreachof the provisions of Article 28of theConstitutionsafeguarding equality before theadministration.And inasmuchastheconfidential re­ port was amaterial factor for thedecision of theappointingau­ thority,thedecision was annulledfor misconception of the facts recordedintheconfidential report It is evident from the confidential report of interested party Kourousidou for theyear 1981 thatthechanges have beenmade with regard toitems4 and8by thereportingofficer himself. He 1188 3CL.R. Georghiadouv.Republic KourrisJ. wasperfectly entitledtodosoandtherehasbeennoirregularity whatsoeverinthepreparationoftheconfidential report. WithregardtotheconfidentialreportofinterestedpartyMarkidou,for theyear 1980thecountersigningofficer madechanges 5 withregardtoitems2,9 and10oftheconfidentialreportandun•derpartVoftheconfidentialreportthecountersigningofficer recordedhisremarksand,theinevitableinference is,thathemust havediscussedthematterwiththereportingofficer beforemaking the changes.Furthermore,in administrative law,there isa 10 presumptionofregularitywhichtheapplicantshouldrebutandno suchrebuttalwasmadeinthepresentcase.Again.withregard-to theconfidential reportfortheyear 1983,thecountersigning officermadechangeswithregardtoitems5,9 and 10andagainrecordedhisremarksunderpartVof theconfidential reportwith ,c theinevitableinferencethatinmakingthechangeshemusthave discussedthematterwiththereportingofficer. * 20 25 Interested party Markidou for theyears'1981 and 1983was1 ratedas"excellent"andwithoutthechangeseffected bythecountersigningofficer againshewouldhavebeenratedas"excellent" inviewofherratingsintheindividualitemsofher confidential reports. Fortheabovereasons,I amsatisfied thattherehavebeenno irregularitieswithregardtothepreparationoftheconfidentialreportsofinterestedpartiesKourousidou andMarkidou.Evenifit washeldthattherehavebeenirregularitieswithregardtotheconfidentialreportsofMarkidou,Iamoftheviewthattheywereimmaterialinviewoftheoveralleffectoftherecordoftheapplicant andthatoftheinterestedparties,andmadenoadverseimpacton thefinaldecisionforthereasonswhichIproposetosetouthereinbelow. Pikis,J.inexplainingtheArgyridescaseinthecaseofPapatryfonosv.TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R.1882atpp. 1887-1888 saidthefollowing:- 1189 KourrisJ. Georghiadou v.Republic

(1988)"ThedecisioninArgyridesdoesnotcompeltheCourttoset asideeverydecisionofthePublicServiceCommissionwhere aconfidentialreportwasimproperlypreparedindependentlyof theimpactofthatimproprietyonthefinaldecision.Sotohold would lead the Court to annulling every decision of the ap- 5 pointingbodyirrespectiveoftheremotenessinpointoftimeof anyirregularitythatoccurred inthepreparationofaconfidential report." The next issue which falls for determination is whether the Public Service Commission promoted themostsuitablepersons JQ to the post of Sister in the Department of Medical andPublic HealthServices. Itisa settledprincipleof administrativelawthatwhenanadministrativeorgan suchasthePublicServiceCommissionselects acandidateonthebasisofcomparison withothers,itisnotnee- 1 5 essarytoshow,inordertojustify hisselection,thathewasstrikinglysuperiortotheothers.Ontheotherhand,theadministrative Courtcannotinterfere norsetasidethedecisionunlesstheapplicantestablishesthathehadstrikingsuperiorityovertheinterested parties. 20 ThecriteriawhichthePublicServiceCommissionhavetotake intoconsiderationwhenreachingadecisionhavebeenexpounded in thecaseofRepublicv.Roussos

(1987)3CL.R. 1217. Inthepresentcase,itiscommongroundthattheapplicanthas seniorityovertheinterestedparties.Sheisseniorby7monthsto 25 Psalti,7monthstoChrysafi, 28monthstoMarkidou,28months to Papayianni and 28months to Kourousidou. Itistobenoted that applicant's seniority oughttoprevail whenother thingsare moreorlessequal.(Partellidesv.TheRepublic

(1969)3CL.R. 480). Counsel for the applicant suggested that the applicant possessed superiorqualifications overtheinterestedpartieson the ground thatsheobtainedherqualifications atanearlierdatethan 1190 ^ 3CL.R. 5 Georghiadou v.Republic KourrisJ. theinterestedparties.Idonotthinkthatthesuperiorityinqualificationscanbejudgedbythedatethequalifications areacquired. Thismay show that one hasmoreexperience but certainly her qualificationsarenotsuperior.Whatismaterialisthatacandidate whopossesses therequiredqualifications inthecaseofpromotionpostsisthedateonwhichtherequestforthefillingofavacancyisreceived bytheCommission.(SeeRepublicv. Pericleous

(1984)3CL.R. 557). Therehasbeenalsoanallegationbycounselfortheapplicant 10 that interested parties Markidou and Psalti did not possess the necessaryqualificationsforthepost. 15 2o ^c ™ Iholdtheviewthatthiscontentioncannotstandbecausetheinterpretationofaschemeofserviceanditsapplicationwillnotbe interferred with by theCourt solong assuch interpretation and applicationwasreasonablyopentothecompetentadministrative organ. (SeeMikkellides v. TheRepublic

(1981)3 CL.R.461; Georghiades v.TheRepublic

(1967)3 CL.R. 653;Mitidesv. TheRepublic

(1983)3CL.R. 1096;Kastellanosv.TheRepublic

(1986)3 CL.R. 1014;Ktoridesv. The Republic

(1983)3 CL.R. 171,whereatp. 173itisstated: "Itiswell-settledthatthisCourtasanadministrativeCourt controllingtheexerciseofthediscretionofthePublicService Commission,whenitdecidedwhetherornotacandidatepossessesthequalifications underaschemeof service,examines onlywhethertheCommissiononthematerialbeforeit,could reasonablyhavecometoaparticularconclusion". Ihavereachedtheconclusion thatinthecircumstancesofthe presentcaseitwasreasonablyopenforthePublicServiceCommissiontodecidethatinterestedpartiesMarkidouandPsaltipossessedtherequiredqualificationsundertheschemeofservice. Withregardtomerit,whichismainlyreflectedfromtheconfidentialreports,alltheinterestedpartieswerebetterthantheapplicant; all theinterested parties wererated as "excellent" for the 1191 KourrisJ. Georghiadou v.Republic

(1988)years prior to the subjudice decision, i.e. for the years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985,whereas the applicant wasrated for the years 1982,1983and 1984as"verygood"andfortheyear1985 as "excellent". Again,theinterestedpartieswererecommendedforpromotion * bytheHeadoftheDepartmentwhichis"amostvitalconsiderationwhichshouldweighwiththePublicServiceCommissionin comingtoadecision inaparticularcaseandsuchrecommendation shouldnotbelightlydisregarded".(SeeTheodossiouv.The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 44 at p. 48).In the case of Republicv. \Q Haris

(1985)3 CL.R. 106, which was decided by the Full Benchatp. 111 itisstated:"Itiswell-establishedthatthePublic Service Cornmission hastopayheed tosuch recommendations andiftheydecidetodisregard themtheyhavetogivereasonsfor doingso". 15 Also,inthecaseofSpanosv.TheRepublic(supra)atp. 1831 itisstressedthat"TheviewsoftheHeadofdepartmentareanimportantpointertothesuitabilityofthecandidateforpromotion." Tosumup,theapplicantisseniortotheinterestedparties,applicantandinterestedpartiespossessedtherequiredqualifications 20 for thepostinquestion, buttheinterestedpartiesaresuperiorto theapplicantregardingmerit.Furthermore,theinterestedparties were recommended for promotion by the head of department whereastheapplicantwasnot. Inthecircumstances,itwasreasonablyopentotherespondent 25 Cornmission onthetotalityofthematerial beforeit, andinthe exerciseofitsrelevantdiscretionarypowers,withwhichIfindno sufficient causetointerfere, toselectasbeingthemostsuitable, theinterestedpartiesinsteadoftheapplicantnotwithstandingthe seniorityoftheapplicant. «n For thethese reasons,therecourse is dismissed but with no orderforcosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1192