3 C.L.R. I'.UI"5J 1988-June25.{r <-(<> y,i,u v v 7 ,· [PIKIS,J.] INTHEMATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION
- DEMETRIOSTHEOCLITOU, 1 «r"Vj \\r 1 , k
- MARIOS N.ONISIFOROU, V.' > *" . ϊ . ' . ' Γ * . ' " , r'- THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, -• ' ° 5 *·'' »' v i'·. * ·*•• ·> ^'Respondents. (ConsolidatedCases 294/86and297/86). • . J » <.'..- I ) i«'· r J :lV. ^,. V Public Officers—Promotions—Head of Departmeni—Recommendations— Significance of—In no wayqualified\bythe length ofseryice as Head of theDepartmentoftheperson makingthem. * i Public Officers—Promotions—Confidential reports-decision to disregard 5 someof themas they emanatedfrom anincompetentorgans-Power ofthe Commission torequire administrationtofillthegap—Whetheritsexercise ismandatory—Questiondeterminedinthenegative—Each^casedependson its ownfacts—in this caseandin thelight of developments in the Depart ment concerned, it was difficult,ifnotimpossible, to fill thegap byreferIQ nng thematter back to theAdministration—Therefore, it was open tothe Commission tomaketheselection byreference to theconfidential[reports, whichwere admissible. Public 0fficers^romotwns^^Qualifications—Additional academicqualifica tionsnotenvisagedasanadvantageintheschemeofservice-rOf'only mar-, H ginalsignificance. The main issuesandprinciplesexpoundedby theCourtinthiscaseare sufficiently showninthehereinaboveheadnotes. Recourses dismissed. No order astocosts. ^ 20 : · * Casesreferredto: SavvaandOthersVRepublic
(1988)'3C.L.R. 160;*'^ ' - V. ^ * 1271 . » : • Theoclitou & Another v. Republic
(1988)Larkosv. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.513; Papadopoulos v.TheRepublic
(1982)3OUR.1070; Papadopoulosv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.405; Makrides v.TheRepublic
(1983)3 C.L.R.622; Spanosv. TheRepublic
(1985)3CLR.1826; Hadjisawa v.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.76; Hadjiioannou v.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1041; Mettasv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.250; Leonidou v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1918; Theodossiou v.TheRepublic 2R.S.C.C.44; . 10 Republic v.Ham
(1985)3CLA. 106; AfeiWj vTteRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R,
- Recourses. Recoursesagainst thedecisionoftherespondents topromote theinterested parties tothepostofMedical Specialistsinprefer- ,enceandinsteadoftheapplicants. .Λ. Haviaras, forapplicant inCaseNo. 294/
- D. Michaelidou (Mrs),for G. Cacoyannis, for applicantin CaseNo.297/
- N.Charalambous, SeniorCounseloftheRepublic, forthere- 20 spondent. 1272 3 C.L.R. Theoclitoii & Another v. Republic N.Papaefstathiou, for interested party I.Charalambides. Cur. adv. vult. 5 10 15 20 25 HQ PUGS J. read thefollowing judgment.'Demetrios Theoclitou andMarios Onisiforou challenge by separate actions thepromotionof V; Pyrgos and Chr.Charalambides toMedical Specialists in the establishment of Psychiatric Services (Recourses 294/86 and 297/86respectively). The two applications were consolida ted,for purposes of hearing,in theinterest of expeditious deter mination and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings; andthey willbe disposed of inonejudgment. The applicants andtheinterested parties were the four candi dates recommended by the departmental committee, set up to screen theeligibility of thecontestants,tobe qualified and suitable for promotion tothetwo vacant posts of Medical Specialist. Followingrepresentationsmadeonbehalf of Mr. Charalambides and the chairman of the Union of Public Employees, PASYDY,the respondents decided todisregard confidential reportsonapplicant Onisiforou and interested party Charalambides for theyear 1982 for thereason that they had emanated from an incompetentorga°. in thatthey had been prepared by aperson otherthan thedi rector, namely, Mr.Petros Matsas. Also they decided to exclude theconfidential reportsontheafore-mentioned parties for theyear 1984, because of a noticeable conflict of interest between each of them andthereporting officer, namely,Mr.Neophytou. Thereafter, before evaluating the data bearing on thecandi dates, the respondents invited the views-of thenewly appointed head of thedepartment,notably, Mr. Malekides, thedirector of thepsychiatric services.Thedirectorrecommended theinterested parties as best suitable for promotion. Hefounded hisrecommendation,as he stated to the Commission, on the worth of therec ommendedcandidates andtheir seniority. Theacademic qualifica tions of thecandidates wereapproximately thesame. Intermsof seniority, thetwo interested parties were senior toapplicantOni siforou by more than one year and to applicant Theoclitou by
- χ PikisJ. Theoclitou &Another v.Republic
(1988)more than threeyears. The P.S.C. addressed themselves to the material before them revelatoryoftheservicerecordofthecandidatesinorder toguide themselves in the choice that had tobemade. Specific reference was made torecent confidential reports by way of indication of 5 themeritsof the parties.In theend,they subscribed tothe views of the headof thedepartment, adopted hisrecommendations and appointedtheinterested partiestotheposition ofmedicalspecialist. Demetrios Theoclitou impugnes the decision on two grounds:(a) Attachment of inordinate importance tothe views of the director.The suggestion isthat theyattached animportance tohis views disproportionate to their intrinsic worth; hisviews should carry littleweightonaccountof thebrevityof hisserviceasdirector,extending only tosevendays. ]0 15 (b)Misconception of thefactsrelevanttotheacademic qualifications of the candidates. The assessment that the qualifications of the candidates in this area were more or less equal, was wrong. MariosOnisiforou founded hischallengeonthefollowing four 20 grounds:(a)Lack of an adequate inquiry into the career of the candidates. The gap left by the exclusion of the confidential reports, earlierreferred to for theyears 1982-1984,remained unbridged. . Therefore, therespondents did nothaveacompletepictureofthe 25 careeroftheparties. (b)Misconception ofthefactsrelevanttotheacademic qualifications of the candidates. The submission made here is not dissimilar to that of applicant Theoclitou. This argument was pressed, notwithstanding acknowledgment indireclty emerging from the citation of authority, that qualifications additional to thoserequired by the scheme of service are a factor of marginal 1274 30 3 C.L.R. Theoclitou &Another v.Republic significance.' l • f • - - .: * Pikis J. *"•' · ' f'•"•' · • ι ' ', . ' ; (c)According undueimportancetoseniority,'afactorof little' consequenceinthecontextof thiscase. ' " . . . 5 10 *' ·> (d)Striking'superiority of theapplicanttotheinterestedparties.Thesuggestion thatapplicantenjoyed suchadegreeof su periority over theinterestedparties is defeated by theprinciplescited in heraddress defining themagnitudeof the superiority necessary toqualify as striking. (Hadjisawa v.Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R.76;Hadjioannou ν. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041; Spanos v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1826). However, benevo lentlyonemayviewthecareerof theapplicantandhis suitability for promotion,hedidnotenjoy anythinglikeglaring superiority overtheothercontestants'for thepost.Ishall notconcernmyself further with thisaspectof thecase. * 15 Counselfor theRepublic supportedthedecisionof therespon dents;hesubmitteditwas atthelowestreasonably opentothem, if notinevitable,inthe'lightof thematerialbefore them.Because of developments in theDepartment of Psychiatric Services, it would notbeexpedient torecall Mr.Matsas for thepurposeof 20 filling thegap left by theexclusion of theconfidential reports. Howtoface thesituationinthelightof thedecision toexcludea numberof confidential reports'was amatterof discretionforthe respondentsresponsible for theinquiry intothefacts of thecase. Furthermore,counsel submitted thatthefact thatthe director 25 hadbeennewly appointeddidnotinany'way preventhimfrom makingrecommendationsorreducetheefficacy ofhis recommen dations.Oncloseexaminationoftheconfidential reports,counsel stated,theinterestedpartieshadaslightedgeover the applicant, anedge thatwas considerably reinforced by therecommendation ~r\ of theheadof thedepartmentandthefactor of seniority; theirse lectionwasvirtually inevitable. 1 Thestrengthoftherecommendationof theheadof thedepart mentis inno way qualified by thelengthof hisserviceatthe top 1275 PikisJ. Theoclitou &Anotherv.Republic
(1988)of the department (s.44
(3), Law 33/67; Spanos v. Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 1826).There is authority that even where the head of adepartment has nopersonalknowledge of thecandidateshemaygaugethegapbyinforming himselfthroughappropriateinquiriesintothequalitiesofthecandidates.(Mettasv.Re- 5 public
(1985)3 C.L.R. 250; Leonidou v. Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1918). No suggestion was made in this case that Mr. Makelideswasunacquaintedorunawareofthevalueoftheservicesof thecandidates.His recommendations did carry,therefore,thevalueordinarilyimportedbytheviewsoftheheadofthe 1( department (Theodossiou v.Republic, 2R.S.C.C.44;Republic v. Haris
(1985)3 C.L.R. 106;Makris v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1103). InSawa andOthers v.Republic
(1988)3C.L.R. 160wedid observe that when confidential reports areexcluded, it isin the * poweroftheP.S.C.torequesttheAdministration tofillthegap. Thisisnotamandatorycourseandeverycasemustdependonits ownfacts.Developments in thepsychiatric departmentmadeit difficult, ifnotimpossible,tofillthegapbyreferring thematter backtotheAdministration. Inwasopen totheP.S.C.toadoptthecoursethey followed andevaluatethemeritsofthecandidatesbyreferencetoadmissibleconfidential reports,after exclusionofthoseconsideredinadmissible.Broadlyspeakingthereportsrevealedthecandidatesto beofficers ofapproximatelyequalmerit.Thereisnothingtosuggest that therespondents misconceived thefacts relevant tothe eventacademicqualifications additionaltothoserequiredbythe schemeofserviceareonlyafactorofmarginaladvantage(Larkos v.Republic
(1982)3C.L.R. 1070;Papadopoulos v.Republic
(1985)3CL.R. 405). Therecommendationoftheheadofthedepartmentwasaseparateanddistinctconsiderationdefinitiveofthemeritsofthecandidate for promotion. (Makridesv.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R. 622;Spanosv.Republic(supra)).Onconsiderationofthemateri- 1276 2 3 C.L.R. ς Theoclitou &Another v. Republic Pikis J. albefore themtherespondentshadnoreasontodepartfromthis recommendation whereas the seniority of theinterested parties was anadditional factor fortheir selection. Inmyjudgment the applicants failed toestablish theircase andin consequencethe tworecourses underconsideration aredismissed. The subjudice decision is confirmed pursuant totheprovi sions of para.4(a)of Art. 146of the Constitution. ... 1277. ι Recourses dismissed.