(1988)1988 June30 [A. LOIZOU, P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION STEUOSVASSILIOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, c Respondent. (Case No. 841185). Public Officers—Promotions—Qualifications—When candidates' qualifica tionsareindoubt—Asarule there mustbeaninquirywith the candidate concerned—Failure, however, tofollowthe rulemay notlead tolack of dueinquiryortoamisconceptionoffact. AnnullingdecisionofthisCourt—Effect—Principle thatnewdecisionmustbe <j takenon thebasisofthe legalandfactualsituationexistingatthe timethe annulleddecisionwastaken—Annulmentofpromotionofpublicofficeron groundoflackofdueinquiryastopossessionofadditionalqualification— Re-examinationofmatter—Collectionofmaterialregardingsuchqualifica tion—Noviolationofaforesaidrule. j( • PublicOfficers—-Promotions—HeadofDepartment—Recommendations—A materialindependentfactordeterminingmerit. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Seniority—Prevailsonlyiftheother twofac tors(MeritandQualifications)aremoreorlessequal. Thepromotionof theapplicanttothepostofSeniorIndustrial Officer wasannulledbyaJudgeofthisCourt(SeeKarisv. TheRepublic
(1985)3 C X R . 496)on thegroundof lackof dueinquiry as topossession of the additionalqualificationsenvisagedintheschemeofservicebytheapplicant andtheinterestedparty. 1328 γ ^ 3 C.L.R. Vassiliou v. Republic As aresult therespondentCommission re- examined the matter. 5 10 r 15 • TheCommission asked from theBritish CouncilRepresentativeinCy prusclarifications regarding applicant'smembership of theInstituteof Me chanicalEngineers.By letterdated 11.4.1985theCouncilplaced suchqualification in thepost graduate level. However, by letter dated 27.5.85the Commission was asked nottotake any decision onthebasis of theprevi ousletter.By letter dated4.11.1985theCouncilreverted tothematterand clarified thatsuchqualification was notapost-graduateone. Itmustfurther benotedthattheinterestedparty forwarded totheCommission certainprintedmaterialanddocuments,relating toapplicant'squal ifications, including material placed by the applicant himself before the Court,which annulled theprevious promotion. ., ,. , TheHeadof theDepartmentstatedbefore theCommission thathehad studied all thematerial in'thefiles,buthewould notliketo'makeanycommerits.However, heproceeded tomentionthatduring his original assess mentat theinquiry which led totheannulledpromotionhe hadtakeninto considerationmaterial, which laterprovednottobecorrect Hefinally add edthathebelieved theinterestedparty tobe superior tothe applicant. Held,dismissing therecourse: 20 25 30 ' 35 , .
(1)Thoughas arule,when acandidate'squalifications areindoubt, the organ must inquire with him about themas partof theproperinquiry that has to be carried out, yet, failure toobserve such rule may notaffect the 'j* sufficiency of the inquiry,orneed notresult inany materialmisconception affecting theinterpretation of theschemeof service.,In thecircumstancesof thiscase andconsidering thattheapplicanthadampleknowledge of the fact that what was in issue before theCommission was the sufficiency of his qualifications claimed toconstitutean advantage under the scheme,one would expect himtoaddress totherespondentCommissionandsupply toit necessary material if he had any, in addition to those it produced tothe Court in the previous case. He.knew that the interested party had ques tioned the possession by him of theadvantage andhe hadinthatway the opportunity and thepossibility tosubmit his views and representationsto respondentCommission. ' ' '· ' •
(2)Thereis nothingtosupportapplicant'scontention thatthe Commission,by inviting theHeadof theDepartmenttoexpress anopinion,violated r- theprinciplethatatthere- examinationof anannulleddecision thereistak en only intoconsideration thelegalandfactual situation thatexists.atthe timetheannulleddecision was taken. ι 1329 Vassiliou v. Republic
(1988)InviewoftheannullingdecisiontheCommissionhadtoinquireabout possessionoftheadditionalqualifications.Therelevantmaterialwhichwas collecteddidnotconstitutenewfactors,butonlynecessaryinformation. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 5 Casesreferredto: FrangoulidesandAnotherv.PublicServiceCommission
(1985)3C.L.R. 1680; Nissiotiv. TheRepublic
(1977)3GLJl.388-397; Psorav.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.229,atp.242; Spanosv.TheRepublic
(1985)3CJLR.1826,atp.1833; Partellidesv. TheRepublic
(1968)3CUL 480; Hadjisawav.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe 15 interestedpartytothepostofSeniorIndustrialOfficer inpreferenceandinsteadoftheapplicant A.S.AngelideswithP.Papageorghiou,fortheapplicant. P.Hadjidemetriou,fortherespondent. G.Triantafyllides,fortheinterestedparty. «n Cur.adv. vult. A.LOIZOU P.read thefollowingjudgment By thepresent recoursetheapplicantseekstheannulmentofthedecisionofthe respondentComissionbywhichtheinterestedpartyloannisKar1330 3C.L.R. Vassiliou v.Republic A.Loizou P. is,waspromotedtothepostof SeniorIndustrialOfficer insteadof theapplicant. •· 5 10 !t 15 . .*•" ,'· . ι •* . ·: • Theapplicantwas first appointedintheGovernmentserviceas an IndustrialExtension Officer Class II,onthe 1st April
- Hewas promotedtoClassTonthe 15thApril 1981..Theinterest edparty was'appointed asanIndustrialExtensionOfficer, Glass Π (FoodTechnology)onthe15thFebruary 1978,and promoted; toClassIonthe 15thMarch,
- .The SupremeCourt(Styliariides J.), byits judgment in Recourse No. 309/83, reported as loannisKarisv. The Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 496, annulled the decision of therespondent Commissiondatedthe24th.February 1983,by which the present applicanthadbeenpromotedtothepostof Senior IndustrialOfficer.Thegroundof suchannulmentwas thattherespondent Commissiondidnotconductthesufficiently necessary inquiry into"the mostmaterialaspectof thematter,i.e:thepossessionof theaddi: tionalqualification by.theapplicantandtheinterestedparty. TherespondehtCommission after notifying thepresentapplicant.of the'annulmentof his promotiondecided.tore - examine 20 thematter.By,letterdatedthe10thApril 1985;.(Appendix 3), the respondentCommissionaskedfrom,theBritish Council Repre sentative in.Gyprus,clarifications regarding thequalifications of theapplicant andin;particularregarding therecognition of the Membershipof theInstituteof MechanicalTErigineers and:whether thesaidqualification was consideredas apostgraduatediploma, 2 5 ortitle,given.that hewas"alsoa'.graduate'of theilnstituteofMe chanicalEngineers.TheBritish Councilreplied by.itslettersof ν the 11thApriH985, the-27thMay, 1985 andthe.4th November 1985; (Appendices 4,5and 6). ' ' ..' .'. • :J "'*^ V )· " i ' M ' - , » o . : " . i. 1 * *· ι "• · , .>• :.'- - 'Theinterested'party'alsoaddressedtotherespondentCommis sion letters datedthe 14th:Mayl985 and 18th-May,.1984 with ;; relevantdocumentsappendedtheretoinordertoassisfas it was said,theCommissionatthere- examinationof thefilling ofthe post inquestion (Appendices 7.and 8).They are in factthe'fol- nrx 1331 A.LoizouP. Vassiliouv.Republic
(1988)lowing: (a)Copyof aletterfrom theCouncilfor NationalAcademic AwardsoftheUnitedKingdom. (b)CopyofcertificatesoftheBritishCouncilwhichwereproducedbytheapplicantasExhibitsbefore theCourtfor thepur- 5 poseofthepreviousrecourse. (c)CopyofthereportoftheDepartmentofEducationandScienceregarding "degreesandequivalentqualifications". ThisreportwasalsoproducedasexhibitbeforetheCourt (d)Extractsfrom thebook "BritishQualifications" (15thEd.- 10 1985). The respondent Commission at its meetingof the 11thJuly 1985,(seeitsminutesAppendix 10),re-examinedthefillingof thepostofSeniorIndustrialOfficer, (StandardsandQualityControl).Ithadatthismeetingbeforeitacopyof aletterdatedthe 15 23rdMay, 1985,fromtherepresentativeoftheMaronitecommunityintheHouseofRepresentativesandtheBishopSuffraga of theMaronites,addressedtothePresidentoftheRepublic,aswell asthereplygiventothem,datedthe28thMay 1985,(Appendix 9).Inthesaidlettercertainallegationsweremadetotheeffect of 20 "improperinterference"andtherespondentCommissiondecided nottotakethematallintoconsideration. Itinvited then theDirectorGeneralof theMinistryofCommerce and Industry who was afforded the opportunity toread fromitsminuteswhathehadmentionedtoitatthepreviouscon- 25 siderationofthematterandalsotobeinformedoftheinformation andmaterialgivenbytheBritishCounciltoitonthequestionof thequalificationsofcandidateVassiliou.TTieattentionoftheDirectorGeneralwasalsodrawntocertainpointsmadeinthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourt TheDirector General then stated thatit wasadifficult case, 1332 30 3 CX.R. 5 Vassiliou v. Republic thathe-hadtakenintoconsideration allthematerial inthefilesof thetwocandidatesrelating totheirmerit; qualifications .andseni ority inordertoform anopinionandmakehisrecommendations,. but he said that he would not like to make any commentson them,as theywereallbefore theCommission which couldassessthemitself. ν - - ., • '< < · \* ·, , ; • * ·* * Hewenton,however, tosay that: * 10 15 20 A.LoizouP. · * ... "What hewould liketomentionwas thefact thatathisorig inal assessment andrecommendation,he'hadjaken into considerarion factors which later,after aninquiry proved not tobe correct,andthiswasprovedby theletteroftheBritishCouncil which he had read earlier as,well as from certain material which hadbeensubmittedthroughhimto,theCommission. Theconclusion which could, in his view,bereached was that the.qualifications of Vassiliou could not be considered . tequivalent tothequalifications of Karisand more, concretely . thathewas notcertainwhethertheprovision intheSchemeof • Service'thatpostgraduatediplomaortitleinasuitable subject willconstituteanadvantage' was satisfied inthecase of Vassiliou.Inviewof thenew elementswhich hadbeen submitted andtaking intoconsiderationthethreecriteriaintheirtotality hesaid thathebelievedthatKaris was superior and therefore hewas recommended.',', .ι , •<*.<, TherespondentCommission tooknoteof thelettersof the rep25 resentative of theMaroniteCommunityandtheBishop Suffraga (Appendix 9),inwhich.as itis statedinitsminute,therewere un founded allegations "for improperinterventionswhichweremade by certainsituationsthatpreventedfair deal",anddecided-notto takethemintoconsiderationatall. * • . ' · . ' 30 Therespondent Commission thenproceeded to,evaluate and comparethecandidatesandthereis setoutintherelevantminutes theratingof thecandidatesas found intheirrespective confiden tialreportswhich as statedtheyexamined intheirtotality,and in 1333 A.Loizou P. Vassiliou v.Republic
(1988)myviewrightlyso,andindicativelyreferredtothoseofthelast five years.Ishallreferonlytothoseoftheapplicantandtheinterestedpartyfor theyears 1978to 1982.They areasfollows:For theapplicant, 1978, ten "verygood". 1979"excellent", (8 -40), 1980 "excellent" (8 -4 -0), 1981,"very good" ( 4 - 8 - 0 ) , 5 1982, "excellent" (9-3-0).For theinterested party, 1978,nine "excellent"one"verygood", 1979"verygood",(7-4-1) 1980, "excellent"(8-4-0), 1981,"excellent"(10-2-0)1982"excellent"(8-4-0). TherespondentCommissionthennotedthattheapplicantwas JQ seniortotheinterestedpartyonthebasisofthedateoftheirpromotiontotheposttheyheldandconsideredthequalificationsof thecandidates andconcluded thattheadditionalqualification at thematerialtimewaspossessedonlybytheinterestedparty.The minutesthengoontosaythefollowing:,t"TheCommission tookintoconsideration allthematerial factorsbeforeitwhichrefertothematerialtimeandinthelight ofwhattheDirectorGeneralmentionedandthereasonedrecommendation hemade to-day,itconsidered onthebasisof the established criteria in their totality (merit, qualification, «o seniority) thatloannis Kariswassuperior totheothercandidatesatthematerial timeanddecided topromote himasthe mostsuitabletothePermanent(OrdinaryBudget)postofSenior Industrial Officer retrospectively asfromthe 1st March, 1983,thatis the samedatethepromotion ofVassiliou which waslaterannulledbytheSupremeCourt,hadbeenmade". Itisthecasefortheapplicantthatthesubjudicedecisionsuffers in view of the omission of therespondent Commission to carryoutadueandproperinquiryand/oritistheoutcomeofa misconceptionoffact and/orlawandwastakenfollowingaprocedure contrary to the CaseLawandto thebasic Principlesof AdministrativeLaw. It wasargued that therespondent Commission reliedonthe contentsofAppendices3to8indeterminingwhetherthequalifi1334 3C.L.R. 5 IQ 20 25 30 35 Vassiliou v.Republic A.LoizouP. cationoftheapplicant"C.ENG"thatis.CharteredEngineerofthe InstitutionofMechanicalEngineerscouldbeconsideredasfalling underthecategory,thatwouldamounttoanadvantageunderthe scheme.InAppendix 3,theBritish(Councilwasaskedtoclarify whether themembershipof theInstitution of.MechanicalEngineerswasconsideredasapostgraduatediplomaortitlegiventhat theapplicantwasagraduateoftheInstituteofMechanicalEngineers.Initsreply Appendix4,theBritish Council after settirg outtheprerequisites for obtaining thisChartered Engineertide, clarified thattheperiodoftrainingandprofessional responsibility,whichfollowstheacademicqualificationsplacethe"C.ENG" title in the postgraduate level. Appendix,^)'is another letter signedbyMr.M.T.Kassel,AssistantRepresentative.InthislettertheBritishCouncilasked nodecision tobetaken by there : spondentCommission onthebasisof thepreviouslettersigned by Mr.Zevlaris, its Office Manager until further clarifications wereasked. Counsel for theapplicant commented thatthislast letterdoesnotappeartohavebeencaused,tobewrittenbytherespondentCommissionbutitwaswrittenontheinitiative ofMr. Kassel.Thentherefollowed Appendix (E),inwhichit isstated thattheInstitutionofMechanicalEngineersisabodyconstituted underaRoyalChartergrantedbyherMajesty the.Queentowhom itisresponsiblethroughthePrivyCouncilandfurtherdownitis stated,the"C.ENG"isawardedbytheEngineeringCounciland isnowdaysgivenonlyaftersatisfying threecriteria;theengineer mustsatisfy thecouncilastohisacademicqualification,,hisprofessionaltrainingandhisexperienceandresponsibility..Theacademicqualification required nowadaysisaFirstDegreefroma British University in an approved,discipline, or a pass in the CounciloftheEngineeringInstitute'sownexaminations.Theperiodof trainingand professional responsibility is normally not less than four years long. In paragraph 5 thereof,:itis stated, membershipof theInstitution ofMechanicalEngineersand"C. ENG."areprofessional titles.They arenot AcademicDegrees andassuchcannotbecomparedtoanyacademicpostgraduatedegrees,diplomasortides.Theyareconsideredassuitableintrainingrequiremnets.If theengineerwishestopursue-hisacademic studiesfurther inordertoobtainthedegreeofM.ScorPh.Dand 1335 A. Loizou P. Vassiliou v.Republic
(1988)for teacher's salary purposes are considered by theBurnham Committeetobeoffirstdegreeequivalent. Learnedcounselfor theapplicantsubmittedthatthecontentsof the letters do notresolve thequestion posed by the respondent Commission whether thequalifications for which they ask, are 5 consideredpostgraduatediplomasor titles. Onthisissuelearnedcounselfor theapplicantfurthercontend edthattherespondentCommission, contrarytotheCaseLawof this Court,heard allegations by theinterested person whichre ferred totheapplicantwithout,however,givingtheopportunity 10 tothelattertobeheard.Insupportof thispropositioncounsel re ferred tothecaseofFrangoulidesandAnotherv.PublicService Commission
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1680, atp. 1686, in which it was said: "Secondly,wehavenotedthatthecandidatewhowas inthe 15 end promoted to the post of Principal Welfare Officer had moved theCommission toexaminethequestion of the suffi ciencyof theacademicqualifications ofothercandidates, such astheappellants,andwe dothinkthatthebettercoursewould havebeenfor theCommisssion tohaveinformed accordingly 20 theaffected candidatesso astoafford themanopportunity to maketheirownrepresentationinthisconnection,eventhough we donotconsider,inthelightof allthecircumstancesofthis particularcase, thatthefailure of theCommission toinform theappellantsthattherehadbeenraisedtheissueof thesuffi- ~ς ciencyof theiracademicqualifications haspreventedthe Com mission from carryingoutadueinquiry,orhasresulted in any material misconception affecting the interpretation of the schemeof servicebytheCommission,soas torenderit neces sary for thisCourttoannulonthisgroundthesubjudicedeci- 3 ^ sionof theCommission." Itmaybenotedherethatthequestionofpossessionby the ap plicantof thequalification thatconstitutesundertheschemeof serviceanadvantage was consideredbytherespondent Commis1336 3C.L.R. 5 ,Q 15 20 Vassiliouv.Republic A.LoizouP. sion as it emanates from theletters, (Appendices 7 and 8)and whattheinterestedpartydidnotwastoplacebeforethe responT dent Commission certain printed material and documents,and certainothermaterialwhichhadbeenproducedbythepresentapplicanthimselfbeforetheCourtthattriedthecaseinthefirstplace and-whichresultedintheannulmentofhispromotion.Therefore though an administrative organ should asarule,-inquire witha candidateabouthisqualifications whensuchorganhasdoubtsas tothestandard of hisqualifications aspartof itsproperinquiry intothematter,yet,failuretodosomaynotaffect the sufficiency of theinquiry, orneed notresultin anymaterial misconception affecting theinterpretationoftheschemeof servicesoastorenderitnecessaryforthisCourttoannulonthisground*adecision reached. Inthecircumstancesofthiscaseandconsideringthattheapplicanthadampleknowledgeofthefact thatwhatwasinissuebefore the Commission was the sufficiency of his qualifications claimedtoconstituteanadvantageunderthescheme,onewould expecthimtoaddresstotherespondent Commissionandsupply toit thenecessarymaterial ifhehadany,inaddition tothoseit producedtotheCourtinthepreviouscase.Heknewthattheinterestedpartyhadquestionedthepossessionbyhimoftheadvantageandhehadinthatwaytheopportunityandthepossibilityto submithisviewsandrepresentationstotherespondentCommission.' 25 30 35 TheconclusionthereforeoftherespondentCommissionthatat thematerialtimetheapplicantdidnotpossessthesaid qualificationwasreasonablyopentoitanddulywarrantedbythematerial before it,suchconclusion havingbeenreachedafter aproperinquiryandwithoutviolationofanyruleofprocedure.· Thesecondgroundof lawreliedupononbehalfoftheapplicantisthattherespondentCommissionactedunderamisconceptionoffact and/orlawasatitsre-examinationofthematteritdid nothaveinmindaletter,of M.T.Kassell totheapplicantdated 22ndAugust, 1985, (Appendix 13(A)),withwhichtheauthorof 1337 A.LoizouP. Vassiliouv.Republic
(1988)that letter admitted indirecdy whatwascontained in the letter, (Appendix4)whichhetriedtoreservebyAppendices5and6, namely that the qualification oftheapplicant in "C.ENG"isof postgraduatelevel.Idoubt,however,ifbythisletterofMr. Kassell (Appendix 13(A)),hewasin any awaydeparting from the 5 views heexpressed tothe Commission byhisletter (Appendix 6).Hesimplysaysthathehasnoreasontoquestionthestatement containedintheletterofMrsBennett(Appendix 13(B). Thethirdgroundreliedupononbehalfoftheapplicantisthat therecommendationoftheDirectorGeneralsuffersfromlackof JQ dueinquiryormisconception offact asregardsthequalifications oftheapplicant.Asitemanatesfrom therelevantminutesofthe respondent Commission,whichhavehereinabovebeensummarized,theDirectorGeneralwasafforded bytheCommission sufficientopportunitytoinformhimselfonthematter,perusetherele- .vant documents and alsobecomeawareof theissuewhich the respondent Commission had toconsider. It was after aproper studyofthesubject thattheDirectorGeneralmadehisobservationsandreachedhisconclusionsthataretobefound inhisrecommendationsasrecordedinthesaidminutes.Itcannottherefore besaidthathewasactingunderanymisconceptionoffactorthat hedidnotcarryoutadueinquiry. ThefourthgroundofLawisthatbyinvitingtheDirectorGeneraltoexpressanopiniononthematerialthatwasbefore therespondentCommission,thelatteroffended theprinciplethatatthe re-examination of anannulleddecisionthereistakenonlyinto considerationthelegalandfactual situationthatexistsatthetime theannulleddecisionwastaken.Thereisnothingtosuggestthat there-examinationdidnottakeplace onthebasisofthefactual andlegalsituationasitexistedonthe24thFebruary 1983.Atthe 30 re-examination,however,,thecontentsofthevariousAppendicesandinparticular4and6thatweretakenintoconsiderationdo notconstitute newfactors but necessary information for therespondentCommission toform anopinionwhetherthequalification oftheapphcantwhichhepossessedatthematerialtimecon- 35 stituted an advantage under the scheme. The respondent 1338 20 3 C.L.R. 5 Vassiliou v.Republic A.LoizouP. Commission was boundtoseeksuch information andcany out a properanddueinquiry and.thisinview,oftheannullingjudgment of thisCourtaccording towhich therespondentCommissionhad failed tocarryoutadueinquiry attheoriginal examinationofthe matter. - >f . i : > y , ( - ,·· ,. ..- ,, • •, Χι: Thefifthground is thattherespondentCommission failedto select themostsuitable candidatefor thepost. *, > *' 10 15 20 25 30 Onthetotality of thematerial before therespondent Commis sion as outlined hereinabove I need hardly say anything more thanthatthe decision of therespondentCommission was reason ablyopentoit. Theinterested party was recommended for promotion by the Head of theDepartment.Sucharecommendationhadtobetaken intoconsideration inviewof theprovision of selection 44
(3)of thePublic ServiceLaw 1961- 1986,which is amaterialindepen dentfactor determiningthemeritof theofficer. Itgoestothemer it of the candidates and cannot be ignored by the respondent Commission unless special reasoning is given justifying such course. (See Nissioti v. TheRepublic
(1977)3 C.L.R. 388 397; Psara v. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 229 atp. 242; Spanos v.TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1826 atp.1833. Nodoubttheapplicantis slightly senior totherespondentbut seniority is not a decisive factor. It is taken intoconsideration duly andprevailsonly whentwootherfactors, meritand qualificationsaremoreorlessthesame.(SeePartellidesv. TheRepub lic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 480;Hadjisawa v.TheRepublic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 76. Needless tosay thatinexamining theadditional qualification of theapplicantrespondent Commission did examine also, asit saysinitsminutes, if theinterestedpartypossessedthe additional qualification too.Theinterested party had indeed theadditional qualification giveninparticularthefact thathewas theholderof thedegree of Masterof Science inFoodTechnology andNutri1339 A.Loizou P. Vassiliou v.Republic
(1988)tion,whichwas before therespondentCommission atallmaterial times. For all the above reasons therecourse fails and ishereby dismissed, but therewill benoorder astocosts. Recourse dismissed. 5 No orderas tocosts. 1340