3 C.L.R. 1988July14*' [A.LOIZOU,P.] "' INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTCTUflON CONSTANTINOS POURGOURIDES ANDANOTHER (No.2), Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEEDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNos. 726/86, 770/86). c IQ Legitimate interest—Reconsideration ofpromotions ofpublic officers,following their annulment on ground relating to theinterviews of candidates— • · Whetheranofficer, who thoughinvited tosuch interviews,failed for reasonsunexplained, toappearthereat,hasalegitimateinteresttoimpugnthe promotionsdecidedaftersuchreconsideration—Questiondeterminedinthe negative. . , . , Public officers—Promotions—Reconsideration of,following their annulment for reasons connected with the impressions and evaluation of the performance ofcandidates at the interviews—Suchimpressions and evaluation correctly not taken into account—Whereas the recommendations of the HeadoftheDepartmentcorrectlytakenintoaccount. > Generalprinciples ofadministrative law—Annulment ofadministrative act— ' 'Thebasisofthereconsiderationofthematter. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearin theJudgmentof theCourt. 15 ' Recourses dismissed. No orderasto costs. Casesreferredto: ' leronymides and Others v.TheRepublic,
(1986)3C.L.R.2424; 1443 Pourgourides (No.2) v. Republic
(1988)loannidesandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1979)3CJ-.R.
- Recourses. Recourses against thedecisionof therespondents to promote the interested party tothepost of Headmasterin the Secondary Educationinpreference andinsteadof theapplicants. 5 AS. Angelides, for applicant inCase No.726/
- Μ Clerides, for applicantinCaseNo. 770/
- E.Loizidou (Mrs.), for respondent. Cur. adv. vult. A. LOIZOUP.read thefollowingjudgment. By thepresent recourses which weretried together as they presentcommonis sues of law and fact and which were taken over by me onthe 17thFebruary 1988,theapplicantsseekadeclarationof the Court thatthedecision of therespondentCommission topromotethe in terested parties A. Panayi, D.Rousounides and A. Chrysostomou tothepostofHeadmasterinSecondaryEducationretrospec tively asfrom the 15thSeptember 1983is nullandvoidandofno effect whatsoever. lft ** The Supreme Court by means of its decision in Recourses Nos.438/83and547/83reportedasKinanis &others v.Educa- ™ tional Service Commission
(1986)3 C.L.R. 151 annulled the promotionsasfromthe5thSeptemebr 1983,tothepostofHead master in Secondary Educationof A. Panayi,A.Constantimdes, A.Chrysostomou andD.Rousounides.As against the annulment of the promotions,the respondent Comission filed Revisional 25 Appeal No. 517 which was later withdrawn. Itwas heldtherein that thecombinationof thefollowing twofactors namely that the evaluation of theperformance of thecandidatesattheinterviews of the 4th to 8th July 1983 was made after the lapse of two months onthe2nd September 1983 and thatsuch evaluation by 30 1444 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 2Q ™ Ρουrgoυrides(No.2)v. Republic A. Loizou P. the Commission was preceded by, the recommendation of the Head of theDepartment,"which hadbeen based inter alia,on the performance of thecandidates attheinterviews, leads tothe con clusion that, most probably, it was in all good faith humanly impossiblefor themembersof theCommission nottobe influenced toacertain extent by therecommendation of theHeadof the De partment, which had been based inter alia on.the views of the General Inspectorof SecondaryEducation. TherespondentCommission inthelight of theaforesaid decision, at its meeting of the 13th September 1986 decided tore examinethefillingof theposts in1question. At its nextmeeting of the 18thSeptember 1986 itreconsideredthematerunderthelegal and factual situation as it was on the3rd'September 1983 when theannulleddecision hadbeenreached,but,as statedin therelevant minutes " .........during the re-examination, the impression from thepersonal interviews which hadtaken place between the 4th and 8th July 1983 and the evaluation of their performance during thepersonalinterviews, which hadtakenplace on the2nd Sepetmber 1983;werenottakenintoconsideration." Therespondent Commission studied the personal files of the candidates and their confidential reports in their totality, giving however greater stress tothelast ones.On thebasis of theprovi sions of theLaw andtheschemeof service, taking intoconsider ation themerit,qualifications, seniority of thecandidates andthe recommendationsof theDepartment,therespondentCommission concluded thattheinterestedparties werethebest. - •>• • Onbehalf of applicantin RecourseNo.726/86itwas contend edthattherespondentCommissionatthere^examinationoughtto have considered notonly thosecandidates who had appeared at the interviews of July but also all those Assistant Headmasters whowerequalified for thepost suchbeing a promotionpost. A preliminary objection was putforward on behalf of there spondent totheeffect thattheapplicantlacks thelegitimateinter est necessary tofile thisrecourse since even thoughhewas invit14it5 A.Loizou Pourgourides (No.2)v.Republic
(1988)ed hehad not attended theinterviewsand hadceased therefore from beingacandidate. Ifeelthatthisapplicanthadtheoptiontoattendtheinterviews and tobeconsideredasacandidatebutforreasonsunknownto thisCourthefailed todoso.Itdoesnotappearthatatanytime 5 subsequently heforwarded anyreasonsforhisnonattendanceor that heattempted torequest tobeconsidered atanylaterstage. Notbeingtherefore acandidateforthepromotionsofSeptember 1983,hehasnolegitimateinteresttochallengethepromotionseffected asaresultofthere-examinationsinceforsuchhewasnot io acandidateandnoothermaterialconcerninghimwasbeforethe respondentCommission. Relevant tothisis whatwasheldinIeronymides &Othersv. Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.2424atp. 2431. "Having narrated thefacts,Icomenowtoconsider theis- ^ suesbeforemeandIshalldealfirstwiththepreliminaryobjections raised by the interested party whohandled thecasein person,astowhethertheapplicantsoranyoneof themhasa legitimate interest to challenge the subjudice decision and whetherthepresentrecourseistimebarred. 20 IthasbeenheldtimeandagainbythisCourtthatwhenan appointment toapost isannulled bytheSupreme Courtthe PublicServiceCommission inreconsidering thefillingofthe posthastotakeintoconsideration thelegalandfactual situationthatexisted at thetimewhen theannulled decision was takenwhichinthepresentcaseisthe1stSeptember, 1981,the dateoftheappointmentofEvriviades,whoseappointmentwas annulled. Therefore, theonlycandidateswhocouldbeconsideredfor the filling of such post were those whowere eligiblecandidatesonthe 1stSeptember, 1981andnonewcandidates.Ap- 30 plicants 2 and 4 who were not in the picture in September, 1446 3 C.L.R. Pourgourides (No.2) v. Republic A. Loizou P. Μ 1981 andwere notamongst theeligiblecandidates,have nole gitimate interest tochallenge theappointmentof the interested party to such post." 5 See also loannides & Another v. Republic
(1979)3 C.L.R. 628 at p.
- • Therecourseof this applicanttherefore fails. 10 Applicant in Recourse No. 770/86 contended that the subjudice decision was wrongly reachedinthattherecommendations of theDepartmentwere wrongly takenintoaccount having been based on theperformance of the candidates at the interviews of July
- Itwas submitted thatnew recommendationsought to have been given. As already stated above the respondent Commission hasto> takeintoconsiderationthelegalandfactual situation as atthedate 15 of theannulled decision; andsince theCourtdid notconsider that the said recommendationswere irregular or faulty therewas noreason why they should not have been taken into account of course - as is clearly stated atp.4 of theminutesof therespondent Commission of its meeting of the 18th September 1986 - "With20 . outtaking intoconsideration theimpression from thepersonal in terviewsandtheevaluation of theirperformance." Therefore, the recourse of this applicant should also fail. For the reasons stated above these recourses fail andarehere by dismissed with noorderas to costs. Recourses dismissed. Noorderas to costs. 1447