(1988)1988June28 [A.LOIZOU,P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION SOTERISARNOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 330/86). Public Officers—Promotions—Head ofDepartment—Recommendations— Whetherperformanceofcandidatesduringtheperiodfollowing theperiod ofthelastconfidentialreportscanbetakenintoconsiderationinmakingthe recommendations—Question determinedintheaffirmative—Commission entitledtobeinformedofthemeritsofthecandidatesonthedayitexamines 5 thematter. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidential reports—The circularfortheir preparation—Disagrementbetweenreportingandcountersigningofficernot asregardsevaluationofparticularcandidate,butonmannerinwhichthe formercompiledhisreportsingeneral—Ruleofprocedureincaseofdisa- JQ greementastotheevaluationneednotbefollowed. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Suddenchangeinrating byreportingofficer—Inquiryintothematterbycountersigningofficer—A legitimatethingtodo. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Striking superiority—Additionalqualification j ^ possessedbyapplicant—Interestedpartysubstantiallyseniortotheapplicant,hadbetterconfidentialreportsduring1984,betterperformanceduring 1985andwasrecommendedforpromotion—Applicantfailedtodischarge theburdencastonhim Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearfrom thehereinabovenotes. yQ Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1284 3 C.L.R. Arnou v. The Republic Casesreferredto: Kazamias v.TheRepublic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1497. Recourse. 5 Recourseagainst thedecisionof therespondenttopromote the interestedpartyidthepermanentpostofAgricultural Officer A in preference andinsteadofthe applicant. AS. Angelides, for theapplicant. * A.Papasavvas, SeniorCounsel of the'Republic,for there' 10 spondent. A.Pandelides, for theinterestedparty. Cur. adv. viilt. 1 , 1 A. LOIZOU P.read thefollowingjudgment. By thepresent . recoursetheapplicantseeksadeclarationoftheCourtthatthede cision όί therespondentCommission topromoteA. Papadopou15 lostothepermanentpostof Agricultural Officer A,Departmentof Agriculture asfrom the15thFebruary 1986 is null andvoidand of nolegaleffect whatsoever. 20 2* As thepost inquestionis apromotionpost from thatof Agri cultural Officer alistoftheeligiblecandidatesfor promotion was senttotheDepartmentalBoardtogetherwith theirpersonal files, theirconfidential reportsandcopiesof theschemeof service for thepost.TheDepartmental Board considered from the material before itthat26officers possessedtherequiredqualifications out of which itrecommendedthree,including theapplicant andthe interestedparty,assuperior totherest. TherespondentCommissionatitsmeetingof the25th Novem ber 1985 considered therecommendationof the Departmental Boardanddecided thatanothereightofficers shouldalsobe cdn1285 A.Loizou P. Arnou v.The Republic
(1988)sidered for promotion. At its meeting of the 2nd December, 1985it heard the views andrecommendations of theDirectorof theDepartmentofAgriculture.Herecommended A.Papadopoulos whomhe considered as excellent. He based this recommendation on the confidential 5 report of 1984andon hisanticipation thathewouldalsobeexcellent for the year 1985 for which the confidential report had not until thatdatebeen submitted.Hestated thattherewerenoothers who were substantiallybetterthan himthough hedid notpossess an additional qualification, but such was not essential. He also JQ had substantial seniority overeverybody else.Asregards theapplicant hestated thathewas Verygood' hisoutput being slightly less thanthatduring theprevious year. The respondent Commission, having found after study of the matter thatonlyfivecandidatesincluding theapplicantpossessed the additional qualification, atitsmeeting of 4thFebruary 1986, requested theDirectorofAgriculturetoreconsider hisrecommendations in view of this fact. He then stated that despite this, he stillconsidered A.Papadopoulos asthemost suitable andrepeated hisrecommendation. ^ The respondent Commission examined then thematerial factors from the file for the filling of the post and from the candidatespersonalfiles andconfidential reports.Italsoconsidered the conclusions oftheDepartmental Board andtheviewsandrecommendations of the Director. It further noted that Papadopoulos *,was themost seniorfollowed byAmos,Papasawas, Herodotou, Stavrides andStarvou inthat order. Therespondent Commissionnotedthehighrecent confidential reports of Papadopoulos i.e.very good for the year 1983,excellent for 1984 and according totheDirector thathe would beex- -^ cellent for 1985in which yearhealso showed improvement, that hewasfirstinseniority withconsiderabledifference andconcluded in the light of allthematerial factors before it,on the basisof the established criteria that A.Papadopoulos was superior tothe 1286 ~« 3 C.L.R. ''Yr 5 20 25 30 35 · i : •. * A.LoizouP. v 3.;. ... i» othercandidatesanddecidedtopromotehimasitdid.As a result 1 ? theapplicant'filed thepresentrecourse. * ' '• * Itwas contendedonbehalf oftheapplicantthat.the.respondent Commission.wronglytookintoconsideration the.confidentialre portof theapplicantfor,theyear 1985ithavingbeencompiledby thereportingofficer, theDistrictAgricultural Officer, Larnaca,A. HadjiAntonis, inaprejudiced maimerafter pressure by,theDirec torof theDepartmentof Agriculture toalterandreducetherating of the'applicant's confidential report.And furthermore thatthe saidDirector'sreference' totheperformance of theapplicant for 1985 was wrongand misleading. ** 5 Arnou v.TheRepublic ".' . i r " . · ' • ' - . ' . . • - i . . . " J Λ * . . Tobegin with, as it transpires,the-confidential reports of-the applicantandof theinterestedpartyfor theyear 1985 werecom piled by thereporting officer onthe9thJanuary 1986 wascoun tersigned by theDirectorof theDepartmentof Agriculture on the 18thFebruary, 1986 andstampedasreceived by theRespondent Commission onthe 1st March, 1986. As thesubjudice decision was reached on the 4th February 1986, that is 24 days earlier, suchreportwas clearly notbefore therespondentCommissionon thedatetheirdecision was reachedandcouldnothave beencon sidered byit. . . • > . . . ,.· ν Irrespective of this,havingheardtheevidence of boththere porting officer A. HadjiAntonis, and thecountersigning officer C.Phocas, Iconsider thattheallegations of thereporting officer totheeffect thathewas forced by thecountersigning officer to altertheconfidential reportof theapplicantfor 1985 asa conduct unbecoming toacivil servant whofor reasons ofpurely personal benefit acted so.These allegations werefirstvoiced inaletterby him tohis tradeunioncommitteewhich was written aboutnine monthslater after thealleged alteration of thereport,inviewof his.impending promotion,for thepurpose of requesting.that the Directorof theDepartmentof Agriculture shouldnotbepresentat thepromotionsfor whichhewas acandidateandsecondlythat-he should not compile his confidential report for the year 19861987 · , , . . Ingivingevidence before me,theDirectorof theDepartment of Agriculture admitted tohaveinquiredaboutthesuddenchange intherating of theofficers even onitemswhich arenotnormally. expected tochangefromyear toyear,which inmyviewwas ale1287 A. Loizou P. Arnou v. The Republic
(1988)gitimate thingtodo.Furthermore,itwasnotadisagreementbetween thereportingofficer andthecounter-signingofficer on evaluation,whereonewouldexpecttheprovisionsoftheCircular tobecompliedwithbutadisagreementastothemannerthereportingofficer compiledtheconfidentialreportsgenerally. AsfarastherecommendationsoftheDirectorareconcernedI cannotfindanythingirregularaboutthemorthattheypresenteda different ormisleadingpictureofthecandidates.Ishouldaddat thispointthatitwasnotimproperasalleged for theDirectorto expresshisevaluationofthecandidatesperformance fortheyear 10 1985inviewofthefact thattheconfidential reportsfortheyear hadnotasyetbeencompiled, sincetherespondent Commission hastobeinformed ofthemeritsofcandidatesastheystandonthe dayitexaminesthematter,thatis,thedayithearstherecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartment.Moreover,fromtheword- 15 ingof section44
(3)ofthePublicServiceLaw 1967itisclearthat therecommendationcannotbeconfined asregardstimelimitsto theyearofthelastconfidential reportsubmitted,buttotheperiod· up to themoment such recommendation ismade. {Kazamias v. Republic
(1984)3C.L.R. 1497atpp. 1506- 1507).I consider 20 therefore thattheseargumentsoftheapplicantshouldfail. Itwasfurther contended,apartfromthefact thattheapplicant as alleged was slightly superior to theinterested party, he also possessestheadditionalqualification provided bytheschemeof serviceandtherespondentCommissionfailed togiveanyspecial 25 reasoningforprefering theinterestedpartywhodoesnotpossess such. Ifind,asfar asthisargumentisconcernedthatspecialreasoninghas been given bytherespondent Commission suchappearingin itsminutesof 4thFebruary,1986.1furtherfindtheappli- 30 cant has failed to establish any striking superiority which is necessarytoenabletheCourttointerferewiththesubjudicedecision. In theresult thisrecoursefailsandisherebydismissed,butin thecircumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. ^.c Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. 1288