3hC.L.R. 1988June 15 >< "*'* [KOURRIS.I] -• , ^ · INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ADAMOS ANDREOU, . . . Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, T « *' .· .,- . Respondent. • *·> ' \ (CaseNo. 406185). Public Officers—Promotions—Striking superiority—Review ofAuthorities ! concerning thenotionofstrikingsuperiortiy., ' .ji>- ' ' ' ς t , * - , Public Officers—Promotions—Qualifications—Scheme of service— Determinationoftheissuewhetheracandidatepossessedtherequiredquali5 fication—Judicial control·—Principlesapplicable. 10 The recourse whereby thepromotion of the interested party was im pugnedwas dismissedonthefollowing grounds, namelythattheapplicant failed toestablishstrikingsuperiorityovertheinterestedparty andthat, in thecircumstances, itwasreasonablyopentotherespondenttofind thatthe interestedpartypossessedtherequiredforthepost inquestion qualifica' tion.' Recoursedismissed. ' ' ·'' ' ' --No orderas to costs. Casesreferredtor 15 '• : '• ' .-I · , -. . Georghiadesandanotherv. TheRepublic
(1970)3C U * .257; Demosthenousv.TheRepublic
(1973)3C.L.R. 534; -1223 Adreou v. Republic
(1988)Georghiou v.The Republic
(1976)3CX.R. 74; HadjiSavva v. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.76; Spanos v. The Republic
(1985)3CL.R. 1826; Papapetrou v.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C.61; • Josephides v. TheRepublic, 2 R.S.C.C.72; Koukoullis v. The Republic, 3R.S.C.C. 134; Neophytou v. The Republic, 1964C.L.R.280; Georghiades v.TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R. 653; Kolokotronis v. TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. 10 Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interestedparty tothepostofSeniorLand Officer in preference andinsteadoftheapplicant. A. Georghiou, for theapplicant. R. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel of theRepublic,for the re- *•* ,spondents. Cur. adv.vult. KOURRISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.BythepresentrecoursetheapplicantseeksadeclarationoftheCourtthatthedecisionoftherespondentPublicServiceCommissiontopromotethe «n interested party,Tryphon Panayides,tothepostof SeniorLand Officer, inpreference toandinsteadofhim,isnullandvoidand ofnoeffect whatsoever. 1224 3 C.L.R. 'Andreou V.'Republic KourrisJ. Thepostof SeniorLandOfficer is apromotionpostand a'De partmentalCommitteewas set upunderthe'provisions of s.36 of : the*Pubiic'ServiceXaw, 1967 (Law No.' 33/67).TheDepiartmen-* talCommittee!on~14.'l1.84 after considerationof thelistofcandi-' 5* dates for promotion and the qualifications'required'^under trie' Schemeof Service, theyrecommendedtotherespondent Com-mission twocandidateswhichweretheapplicantandtheinterest edparty. .ι' 1 ' ' · " ." ~ ι I « J ' j„ * » . t ' · Γ11 ' t~ - . :i ι .* - *'TheCommission'atitsmeetingof27.11.1984heard'theviews 1 ιλ andrecommendationsof theDirectorofLandServices,whorec ommendedtheinterestedparty.'/TheCommission then, inthe ab senceof theDirector;proceededtomakeits'own assessmenrand after ageneral evaluation of thecandidates andacomparison be-' tween themitreacried'theconclusion,having takeninto account' «cf allrelevant considerations,thattheinterested*party was superior totheapplicantanddecided topromotefiim'to'tKe'postof Senior' L^d Officer. .;* '''' V - -'7^ -' -' >ύ ·· · " 0(Ί · J' Z e ' ) '.· V ' U ^ ' l l \5t1K ''>n> r -';-J.·· ·/' O- L" ' ; Theapplicant,feeling aggrievedbecause of the decision,'filed thepresentrecourse,and thelegalgrounds'onwhichhe challenges thedecisionarethe'following: *f ''- i > ' j r .-' * J " ,!I i •' 1.TheCommissionfailedto1select themostsuitablecandidate '•(I havingregard toseniority,meritand qualificatios; ' 2.*The'Commissionactedinexcessandl/ofinabuseof power,
- TheCommissionfailedtocarry outadueinquiry; 25 *"' 4.Tnedecision for promotion!of theintefeste<ipartyis lacking , ,, :! , 1; du' erc asoiuiig; ' ' "i- ' '' ''*' · " '·"' /vt 30 '* J }. * ' 5, Tne(Cornmission actedundermisconceptiori'of law because theyignored and/ordidtakeintoconsideration'ana7or'didnotgive due.weight tothequalifications1oftrieapplicantPn'spiteof thefact thatthe'interestedpartyislacking qualifications asagainstthe'appUcant. Yr\. ; -Λ . - . . , . A* - ι 1225 KourrisJ. Andreouv. Republic
(1988)Iproposetodealwiththefirst groundtotheeffect thatthe respondentCommissionfailed toselectthemostsuitablecandidate. Theburdenisupontheapplicanttoestablishthathewasstrikingly superior totheinterestedparty inordertosucceedinhisrecourse. (Georghiades and anotherv. TheRepublic
(1970)3 5 C.L.R.257mdDemosthenous v.TheRepublic
(1973)3C.L.R. 534). It isa settled principleof administrative law when anorgan, such as thePublic Service, selects acandidate on the basisof comparison with others,itisnotnecessarytoshow,inorder to ^Q justify hisselection,thathewasstrikinglysuperiortoothers.On theotherhand,anadministrativeCourtcannotinterveneinorder tosetasidethedecisionregardingsuchselectionunlessitissatisfied,byanapplicantinarecoursebefore it,thathewasaneligiblecandidate whowasstrikingly superior totheotherwhowas ,,selected,becauseonlyin suchacasetheorgan whichhasmade the selection for thepurposeofanappointmentorpromotion is deemed tohaveexceeded theouterlimitsof itsdiscretion and, therefore, tohaveactedinexcessorabuseofitspowers;alsoin such a situation the complained of decision of the organ concerned is to be regarded as either lacking due reasoning or as based on unlawful or erroneous or otherwise invalid reasoning (OdysseasGeorghiou v.TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R.74atp. 83). The notionof strikingsuperiority wasexpounded inthecase 25 of HadjiSavvav. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.76 whereatp. 78itisstated:"Asregards theexpression 'striking superiority'suggests, aparty'ssuperiority,tovalidateanallegationofthiskindmust beself-evident andapparentfromaperusalofthefilesofthe candidates.Superioritymustbeof suchanatureastoemerge onanyviewofthecombinedeffect ofthemerit,qualifications andseniorityofthepartiescompetingforpromotion;inother words,itmustemergeasanunquestionableeffect; sotelling astostrikeoneatfirstsight." 35 1226 3 C.L.R. Andreou v.Republic KourrisJ. ' Also,in thecase of Spanos v. TheRepublic
(1985)T3 C.L.R. 1826itisstatedbytheCourtatp. 1832as'follows:: *' 5 ΙΟ 15 20 25 "Tomakeoutacaseof striking superiorityitmustbeestabished thatapplicant's superiority was soglaringas toprovide anobjectivebasisfor interference.Adecisionreasonablyopen * tothePublicService Commission is notvulnerable tobe set asio!e on this groundi.e. decision they could have bona fide reached intheexerciseof theirdiscretionary powers. Striking superiority must be established by reference tothestatutory criteriafor selection - namelymerit, qualifications andseniori ty - andemergeinconsiderationof thefacts ofthecase". I have perused thecontentsof theconfidential reports inre spectof theapplicantandtheinterestedpartyfor theyears 19791983andinmyviewtheapplicantand1theinterestedpartyappear tobecandidatesof moreorlessequalmerit.Asregardsseniority Ihaveduly consideredtherelevantstagesihthecareersof the ap plicantandoftheinterestedpartyanditappearsthatthe.interested partyis seniortotheapplicantby 2yearsregardingtheirprevious post(seeAppendix 4A). ' 'J "* Themaincomplaintof theapplicantinthisrecourseis thathe isinasuperiorpositionwithregard to qualifications. Theapplicantclaims thattheinterestedparty did.notpossess theacademicqualifications laid down by theschemeof service andthat inanycasetherespondentCommissiondidnotcarryout thesufficiently,necessary inquiryintothismostmaterialaspectof l H thematter. *"J;l* • · · , , · . , 30 •·:. •* M • J ' •,' • - f - '.' " Therequiredqualifications areaUniversity DiplomaorDegree inLaw recognizedas aqualifications for enrolmentas an advo^cateinCyprusundertheAdvocates LaworEstateManagementor otherappropriate'subject, ormembershipof anappropriaterecog nizedprofessional body,orotheracademiconprofessional quali fication approved"asbeing ofequivalentstandard. 1227 KourrisJ. Andreou v.Republic
(1988)TheapplicantcontendedthattheUniversityDiplomainLawof theinterestedpartyisnotactuallyadiplomainLawbutadiploma inPublicLawandSocialSciencesoftheUniversityofThessaloniki. Itmaybepointedoutatthisstagethattheapplicantisthehoi- 5 derofadiplomainUrbanEstateManagementofthePolytechnic ofCentralLondonandheisalsoaProfessional AssociatetoRoyalInstituteofCharteredSurveyors. TheDiplomaof theinterestedpartyisattachedtotheaddress oftheinterestedpartyandthequalificationsoftheinterestedparty 10 werebefore therespondent Commission,andasitiswellestablished,itisnotfortheCourttodecidewhetherapersonappointed was qualified in acase whereit wasreasonably open tothe Commission tofind thathewassoqualified, asthepresentcase is. (SeePapapetrouv.TheRepublic*2R.S.C.C.61,Josephides 15 v.TheRepublic,2 R.S.C.C.72;Koukoullis v.TheRepublic, 3 R.S.C.C. 134;Neophytou v. TheRepublic, 1964 C.L.R. 280; Athos Georghiadesv. TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.653atp. 668). In thesecircumstances, Iamsatisfied that the respondent did not act either underamisconception of fact orunderamis- ~o conceptionoflawandconsequendy,thispointfails. Ifit washeldthattheapplicantwassuperiortotheinterested party asregardsqualifications, whowasnotinthepresentcase, hewasnotfoundbytheCommissiontobeonthewholesuperior totheinterested party.Indeed,theapplicant failed tosatisfy this ~<; Courtthathewasacandidate strikinglysuperiortotheinterested party,duetoqualifications orotherwise,sothattheCourtcould interveneinhisfavour andannulthesubjudicepromotionofthe interestd party (See Kolokotronis v. The Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 418). Inviewoftheforegoing Iamoftheopinionthattheapplicant has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that he was strikinglysuperiortotheinterestedpartysoassojustify theinterventionoftheCourtinhisfavour.Iwouldliketoaddthatinpro1228 30 3 C.L.R. 5 Andreou v.Republic ceedings suchasthe presentrecoursethisCourtwillnotinterfere with the exerciseofthe discretionoftheresponded• Commission in makingpromotionsif the decisionof the Commissionwasrea sonably open toit in the circumstances of a case; and in the presentinstance,onthebasisofthe materialthat'wasplacedbe fore theCommission andisnowbefore me, itwas, inmyview, reasonably open toit toarrive.at its subjudice decision. This Courtcannotsubstituteitsowndecisionforthatof the Commis sion.Consequently,thispointfails. 10 Forallthesereasonstherecourseisdismissedbutwithno or der forcosts. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. ·' '. | t '- ' V-. ' " ...J1 ..- j \ : .· ' ' > - - ν \ . - * I'VJ . . r ι ':J' L ; \ . i ! ' O ' t . . -'- ' . T " \u *> ' . : Ί '1 '* Kourris J. /!*J : ' . ; -*." •- ^ v w -. t ' ' : i * Ί . ' j ' h- - t r\"^ "• Ί ί ·' I '-'' f / "Οι ,-''f'l ι-1 •· ' -> . ' ' ! ( ' ' J -'* . . T ^ ' J I . ' J J ' *, . ι' *Λ ι · τ"Λ ' - " " ' " '. ^ "· υ ι ** ·' i1 "* ·• '- '41 > • . .'· t ruz !' > ' ι* " - ν·*' ' • "' •' ' '* v ' f ,, ' - * W * ' · * !> ii i . ~ r *ι·'-ί.ί _ ! . ; . , . ' · ; - ' . " i ·. t ' i - ) · ,i *· ,M*y" " / * " ( . * • / [ • ^ , ' j l f . f . i f . " ii •''• -i[yiifΪ,ΗΙ:, •· . , ' . ] . .r \ . \ : f : j i i o y r b . ' 1 o J ' . ' ' ϊ " " l o v j b , • • ,:,'.n ^ " ' V . .-.tii-.ι . ' ' • *τ rt\' η .?&.." ; f . .Λ"* 1" ..f: ύ .'i.'V , . . " *U * 'n '-If Μ' ί \J£\ L 2 0 ! i " ι ; _ ' :·; , f c , •· . . n * i "J " ' · . » * . *•. ' * . « ' < t y - • ' · '<<' • ': * ' ' • ' *^CL.: ** •* •' f , i ' ' • j J ' i . V *'· t'J * » •" ν , ' (u- , ι ΐ ι π , . 1 i j , • · .,·ι * «">r; . ; .U"» ..· ' .»"* lie 1229 . ·•)!i-.fj ( ;1 • " ' -.-.:<] -\.'*· ·· '· '. • *. ι