clr/1988/1988_3_1673.pdf

(1986)3CLJi. 852. 5 Public Officers-Promotions—Qualifications—Additionalqualificationsnot envisagedasanadvantageintheschemeofservice—Thoughtheydonot establishbythemselvesstrikingsuperiority,theycannotbedisregarded. Public Officers—Promotions—Striking superiority—A notion differentfrom thenotionofbestsuitablecandidate. 10 PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Theimportanceofrecent confidentialreports. Public Officers—Promotions—Confidential reports—Reporting officers not civilservants—Applicantcannotreprobateandapprobate. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Head ofDepartment—Recommendations— Reasonsof—ReviewablebythisCourt. 15^ PublicOfficers—Promotions—Head ofDepartment—Recommendations— Contrarytothematerialinthefile—Weight. 1673 Dometakis v. Republic

(1988)Thefactsofthiscaseneednotbesummarised. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Georghiouv.TheRepublic

(1976)3C.L.R.74; 5 Republicv.Zachariades

(1986)3CLJI.852; MichaelidesandAnotherv. TheRepublic

(1987)3CLJI.2170; Andreou v.TheRepublic

(1979)3CLA.379; Papadopoulosv.Republic

(1985)3CLJI.405; Michaeloudesv.Republic

(1982)3CLJI.963; 10 . SoteriadouandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1983)3CLA.921; Ioannidesv. TheRepublic

(1986)3C I A . 1089; GeorghiouandOthersv. TheRepublic

(1988)3CLA.678; GeorghiadesandAnotherv.TheRepublic

(1975)3CLA.143; loannou'v.Republic

(1977)3CLA. 61; Republic v.Roussos

(1987)3CLA. 1217; Platisv. TheRepublic

(1978)3CXA.384; HjUoannouv.Republic

(1983)3CLA.

1. 1674 15 3CX.R. Dometakisv. Republic Recourse. 5 Recourse againstthedecision of therespondents topromote theinterestedpartytothepostofChiefSchoolClerk,Ministryof. Educationretrospectivelyasfrom 15thMarch, 1984inpreference ; andinsteadoftheapplicant. ' , ; · . ' AS. Angelides, for.the applicant. **.,*.·- A.Papasavvas, SeniorCounsel of theRepublic, for therespondents. 10 E.Efstathiou,fortheinterestedparty..* . . . . . , . , . Cur. adv. vult. f * 15 * - -· • , /1 . * ' , < * STYLIANIDESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicant bymeansofthepresentrecourseseekstheannulmentofthedecisionof therespondent Public ServiceCommission published in. theOfficial Gazetteof theRepublicof 3rdJuly, 1984,whereby, CostasStefanou (theinterestedparty) waspromoted tothepost ofChief SchoolClerk,MinistryofEducation,retrospectively as from.15th March, 1984,in preference and insteadof theapplicant. J* .•'. .' .' ;' .. . ' •'" ' -v* · TherespondentCommissionbydecisionpublishedintheOffl
2. cialGazette underNo. 1945of6thApril-,1984,promotedtothe saidposttheapplicantwitheffect from.l5th March,;!
3. Theinterestedpartyinthepresentcasechallengedthevalidity ofsuchdecisionbeforethisCourt.Thatpromotionwasannulled bytheSupremeCourtinRevisions!AppealNo.588- (Stefanou 25 v.TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R.431)on the sole ground that therespondeht.Gommission hadgivenundueweighttotheinterView,theresultofwhichwastotipthescalesinfavourofthein-' *" terested party, but avoided to make any pronouncement as to whichone.of thecandidates wasbetterohthebasisoftheestab30 lishedcriteria,asanyopinion of theCourtmight beanimpedi1675 Stylianides,J. Dometakisv.Republic

(1988)mentfortheRespondentwhenre-examiningthecase. Following thejudgment of the Full Bench of the Supreme Court,therespondentCommissionmetandreconsideredthematteronthefactual andlegalsituationobtainingatthedatetheannulleddecisionwasreachedandtookthesubjudicedecision,that 5 is, they promoted by majority—the Chairman and two members—theinterestedpartytothepostinquestion. Theapplicantchallengesthesubjudicedecisiononthefollowinggrounds:(a)The subjudice decision istainted withmisconception of 10 factandlawconcerningthequalifications. (b)TheRespondent gaveundueweighttotheseniorityofthe interestedparty. (c)Theapplicantisbetterinmeritasreflected intheconfidentialreports. (d)Theconfidential reportsontheinterestedpartyareinvalid as thereporting officer wasnotacivil servant stricto sensu,he beingtheDirectorofthePedagogicalAcademy,butapubliceducationalist (e)TheRespondentdidnotfollowtherecommendationsofthe 20 HeadoftheDepartment,theDirector-GeneraloftheMinistryof EducationMr.Adamides. Andlastly, (0ThattheCommissionfailedinitsparamountdutytoselect thebestsuitablecandidate,who,intheinstantcase,healleges,is 25 theapplicant Theclaimtopromotionbythecivilservantsisbasedonmerit, qualifications andseniority.Itisnowsettledbythejurisprudence 1676 15 3 CX.R. 5 Dometakisv.Republic StyHanidesJ. ofthisCourtthatanappointingauthoritywhenweighing together thesaidthreecriteria,laidby law,inordertofind the mostsuita­ blecandidate, mayattributesuchsignificance tothemasmaybe deemedproper, provided thatitexercisescorrectly,inthe course ofdoing so,itsrelevant discretionary powers—(Georghiou v. TheRepublic

(1976)3C.L.R. 74; Republicv. Zachariades

(1986)3C.L.R. 852). Counselfortheapplicantcontendsthat, since theadditional qualifications oftheinterestedpartywerenotanadditionaladvan10 tageundertheschemeofservice, theyshouldnothavebeen taken intoconsideration. Theapplicantisagraduateofsecondaryedu­ cation.Theinterestedpartyhasuniversity qualifications, includ­ ingdegreeinliteratureoftheUniversityofIoannina.Themajori­ ty of the Commission said that the interested party was '15 substantially betterin qualifications. 20 Itiscorrectthatacademicqualifications, additionaltothosere­ quiredby theschemeofservice,donotby themselves indicate a striking superiority—(HadjUoannou v.The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041). But the notionof "striking superiority" iscompletely different from thenotionof"thebestsuitablecandidate" for promotion. " • Additional qualifications tothose provided in thescheme of service,whicharenotmadeanadvantageunderthescheme, can· notbedisregarded by theappointingauthority,astheyareanek25 mentofassessingtheability ofthecandidateinthebetterperfor­ mance of theduties of the post. They are nota factor by themselves..They,may notconstitutestrikingsuperiority,butthey areaconsiderationtowhichregardmustbegiveninselectingthe most suitable candidateforpromotion. The selection mustbe 30 madeonthetotalityofallfactors. Ifthelaw intendedthat qualifi­ cations,exceptthoserequiredbytheschemeofservice, should "notbetakenatallintoconsideration, thenthefactorof "qualificaΛ tions"wouldbemeaningless—(Michael MichaelidesandAnother v.TheRepublic of Cyprus

(1987)3CX.R.2170. 1677 Stylianides J. Dometakis v.Republic

(1988)Triantafyllides, P. in Andreou v. The Republic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 379 said at p.388:"... a scheme of service prescribes only the basic requirements for appointment orpromotion toaparticular post. It is open,therefore, toan appointingauthority totake intoaccount 5 anyotherqualification ofacandidatewhich isofsuchanature astorenderhimthemostsuitablecandidatefor appointment or promotion; and there cannot beexcluded from the notion of 'themost suitable'theessential consideration of how best will beserved theinterestsof thespecific branchof thepubhc ser- 10 viceinwhich avacantpostistobefilled." Triantafyllides, P. in Papadopoullos v. Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 405, at p.441 said:"Asregards theirqualifications thereexisted amanifest difference between theappellant andthetwointerestedpartiesin 15 question, in the sense that the qualifications of the appellant were by far superior to those of interested parties Loizou and Ioannou and when such qualifications, which appear to be veryrelevant tothedutiestobeperformed bysomebody holding the post of 'Counsellor orConsul-General B",areweighed 20 togetherwith themoreorlessequalmerit of theappellant and the said twointerested parties, andwithout losing sight of the slight seniority of such interestedparties,theconclusion isinevitable, in my opinion, that the appellant was strikingly superiortothem." 25 The passage from Andreou case above was adopted by SavvidesJ., inMichaeloudis v.Republic

(1982)3C.L.R. 963. In Soteriadou and Others v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 921, atpp.943—944 it was said: "... in promotions qualifications beyond those required by the schemeof service,which areakin tothedutiesof the offir cer and which make him more suitable in thecarrying out of 1678 30 3 C.L.R. Dometakis v. Republic Stylianides J. such duties,should be takenintoconsideration." •••, • InIoannides v. The Republic

(1986),3C.L.R. 1089, at p. ,1095 itwas said: i :* ' ; "Additional academic qualifications tothoseprovided inthe scheme of service, though they have tobe takenintoconsider•ation with all otherelements,dp notby themselves indicate a striking superiority." _ , · . · • - 5 Λt The Respondents properly evaluated the qualifications of the candidates andthecomplaintof the applicantis untenable. 10 15 20 ^ 25 J.' Thecomplaintthatthey have givenundueweighttothe senior­ ity of die interested party is, also, unfounded. Under section 46 of thePublic Service Law, 1967 (Law No. 33/67)the interested party was by eleven months senior. The reference to Cases Nos. 36/86,123/86, and 158/86Georghiou and Others v. The Republic

(1988)3 C.L.R. 678 is misconceived. In those cases the Court said thatthe seniority of the applicants was taken into,considera­ tion in theoverall assessment of the candidates.Their seniority in the circumstances was notof significant weight andcould not tip the scales intheirfavour. , .Λ . v , • · .•.<--" TheCommission under section 44

(3)of Law 33/67in making a promotion shall have due regard tothe annualconfidential r> ports onthecandidates.Theconfidential reports on the applicant .who was posted attheoffice of die School Committeeof Limassol town was prepared by Mr.,Papas,theChairmanof theSchool Committee, who was neither a civil servant nor a public educa­ tionalist The Directorof the Pedagogical Academy was reporting officer on theinterestedparty who was posted atthateducational institution..These were thereporting officers. They,were differ­ ent . ' J ,Vr ;. · 3® ~._Both theapplicant and.theinterestedparty were rated excellent "•-,; for the five years preceding thematerialdatefor thisdecision. · •1679 Stylianides J. Dometakis v. Republic

(1988)Counsel for theapplicantcontends that hisclient wasbetter andshould havebeen preferred becausethough for thelasttwo years, that is 81-82, 82-83, both were rated excellent on all twelveitems,in80-81theinterestedpartywasratedexcellenton tenitemswhereastheappUcantonalltwelveandinthetwopre- 5 cedingyears78-79,79-80,8-3-1,7-5-0. Recent confidential reports, as repeatedly stated by the SupremeCourt,areofspecialimportanceinascertainingthemerits ofthecandidatesastheydepictanup-to-datepictureoftheirper- 10 formance. (See,interalia,GeorghiadesandAnotherv.TheRepublic

(1975)3 C.L.R. 143;Nikiloannouv.Republic (Public ServiceCommission)

(1977)3C.L.R.61.) IntheRepublic v,Roussos

(1987)3C.L.R. 1217it wassaid atp. 1224:"...weshould stressthatwhatreallymattersisthegeneral picturepresentedbytheoverallgradeinthereport,onthebasisoftheaggregateeffect oftheevaluationsofapublic officer regardingparticularrateableitems,andnotthearithmeticalformulaofhowmanytimesasregardssuchitemsacandidatehad 20 beenrated as 'excellent'orVerygood',or'good'etc." Andfurtherdown:"...it must not be lost sight of thatit isdangerous toembarkonthesenumericalcomparisonsindependentlyofthenatureoftheitemsinrespectofwhichanofficer isratedas'ex- 25 cellent' or 'very good* since such items do differ in significancedependingonthequalitiestowhichtheyrelate." It wascontended that thereportingofficer for theinterested partywasnotstrictosensuacivilservant. Thereportingofficer fortheapplicantwasnotalsoacivilser- 30 vant Theapplicantcannotbeallowedtoapprobateandreprobate at one and the same time - (Platis v. The Republic

(1978)3 1680 15 Dometakis1v.Republic 3 C.L.R. C.L.R'.384;atp.395). * '"' · - '; ' *' . 5 10 20 25 30 • ' '"•". * •' .. MOV · ' .V '' ' Thereportingofficer for theinterestedparty was theDirector of tHe Pedagogical Academy, acivilservant inthewidesenseof theterm,'who'by virtueof hisdutieshaddirectknowledgeofhis work.Reportingofficers arenominatedby theHeadof the De­ partment,underparagraph 12oftheCircularissuedbytheCoun­ cilof Ministersontheconfidentialreports, andthereis noconten­ tion thattheDirectorof thePedagogical Academy, whose'reports on the ihterested'party*were "countersigned b'y theDirectorGeneralof theMinistry anilby theDirectorof Secondaryand Higher Educationrespectively,was notnominatedasreporting officer. Thisground,also,fails. "'•*•"'-'L '-'''*"' ·.'".; 15 StyManides-J. : ·"' • . • » *. . . ' si · ι : ν Λ * .'. :•. TheHeadof theDepartmentin 1984 attendedthemeetingof theCommission andstatedthatamong thecandidatestheselectiohwas limitedbetweenDometakis,theapplicant; andStefanou, theinterested party,butthepresentapplicantwas better suited. Therecommendationsof theHeadof theDepartmentwerenotin accordwiththematerialinthefile.Theinterestedpartyissenior, betterqualified andequally ratedexcellentintheconfidentialrePorts. Inmakingapromotion,theCommissionshallhavedueregard totherecommendationsmadeby theHeadof theDepartment in which thevacancy exists. Itis well established thatthePublic Service Commission has topay heed tosuch recommendations andif itdecides todisregard them, theyhavetogivereasons for doing so. TheCommissionis notarubber stampof the recom­ mendationsof theHeadoftheDepartment,butitshouldnotlight­ ly disregard them andif theydecidenot toactinaccordance with Suchrecommendations,they have togivereasons for so disregarding them andsuchreasons arcsubject toscrutiny by theAd­ ministrative Court.Thereasonsfor therecommendationsof the Headof theDepartmentarealsoreviewablebytheCourt In thepresent case therecommendationsof theHeadof the Departmentwerenotsupportedby thematerialinthefile,and, 1681 StylianidesJ. Dometakisv.Republic

(1988)further,theCommission gavesatisfactoryreasonsfornotfollowingsuchrecommendations. Theapplicantfailed tosatisfy thisCourtthatheis"strikingly superior"totheinterestedpartyinthesensethisexpressionisanalyzedinHjiloannouv.Republic

(1983)3C.L.R.1041. 5 Onthetotalityofthematerialbeforeme,theapplicantfailedto establish that thesubjudicedecision wasin anyway taintedor faulty. Itwasreasonably opentotheRespondenttopromotethe interestedpartyasthemostsuitableforthepostinquestion. . Foralltheforegoing reasons,thisrecoursefails. Thesubju- 10 dicedecisionisconfirmed underArticle146.4(a)oftheConstitution. Inthecircumstancesofthecase,Imakenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 15 1682