3 C.L.R. 1988August31 [A.LOIZOU,P.] , -i , INTHEMATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION . 4Λ \ GREGORISTHALASSINOS Applicant, v. THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, , . . ' 5 . > , Respondent. '(CaseNo. 746/87). PublicOfficers-Promotions—Departmental Committees—The'nature•andob-_ ject of theirfunctions—Their existencedoesnotinanywaylimitorrestrict the competence of the.PublicService Commission—Once the·competence of the Commission wasdulyexercised,the legality of thefinalact is not affectedbyanyfailure ofa departmentalcommitteetoexamine a relevant fact. Reasoning ofadministrativeacts—Collectiveorgans-decisions takenbyma jority—The views of theminorityneednotbedulyreasoned. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable. m PublicOfficers—Promotions—Striking superiority—Onusonapplicant. 15 NaturalJustice—Bias—Public Officers—Confidentialreports-r-Organspartici· , paling inadministrativeprocessmustappear toactwithimpartiality—Lack of impartiality must beestablished with sufficient certainty—Factsestab lishing bias maytakea variety offorms, but invariably they mustoffend basicprinciples offairness. Theprinciplesemergingfrom thedecisioninthiscasesufficient]y ap pearfromthehereinabovenotes. * '.·.***· Recoursedismissed. No orderas tocosts. 1683 Thalassinos v. Republic
(1988)r Casesreferredto: MichanikosandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R. 237; Duncan v.TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.153; PlatrUisv.TheRepublic
(1969)3 GLR.366; Christouv.TheRepublic
(1980)3CL.R.437; 5 Joannidesv. TheRepublic
(1985)3CLR.2450; SoteriadouandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1985)3CJ.J*.300; MichaelandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1982)3CLJl.726; FrangoullidesandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1985)3CUR. 1680; Komodromou v.ΓΛβ*e/JiiWic
(1985)3CJL.R. 2250; 10 MytidesandAnotherv. ΓΑ*Republic
(1983)3CL.R. 1096; Demosthenousv.TferRepublic
(1973)3GLR.354; ΑΓΟ/ΪΚ andAnother v. C5.C.
(1973)3C.L.R.546. Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe \$ interestedpartytothepostofLabourOfficer 1stGradeinprefer enceandinsteadof theapplicant L. Clerides, for theapplicant A. Vladimerou, for therespondent Cur.adv.vtdt. 20 1684 3CX.R. 5 • Thalassinosv. Republic A.LOIZOUP.readthefollowingjudgment Theapplicantin thisrecoursechallengesthedecisionoftherespondentCommissiontopromote AnnaPiperi("the interestedparty"),tothepost of Labour Officer First Gradein theDepartment of Labour,in preferenceandinsteadofhimself. Thefacts whichledtothesubjudicedecision,sofar asrelevant,areasfollows: r Astheabovepostisapromotionpost,aDepartmentalBoard wassetup.TheDepartmentalBoardwhichconsideredthesuita10 bilityof thecandidates atitsmeetingof the28th August1986, and3rdSeptember 1986,decided: 15 20 25 on ·*" "(b)bymajority torecommendassuitableforpromotionto thepermanentpostofLabour Officer FirstGradethecandidatesappearinghereinafter inalphabeticalorder. . . 1.AristidouPanayiotis 2.GeorghiadouIrini •3.MiltiadousPantelis 1 4.PiperiAnna (c)Bymajority not torecommendfor promotion thefol'-lowingbecauseitdecidedthattheylackbehindthecandidates referredtoinparagraph(b)above. 1.ThalassinosGregorios 2.ToupiaLygia , , , . 3.GeorghiadesAndreas 4.KouiAntonis . 5 . SayvidouYianoulla 6.PhilippouPhoevos ..> , , ·* 7.VaneziGeorghios 8.CharalambousFostira '' ' 9.SocratousIrini 1685 * A. LoizouP. Thalassinosv.Republic
(1988)10.KatselliParaskevoulla. 4.ThememberoftheBoardMr.Kolokotronisagreedwith thedecisionoftheBoardtorecommendcandidatesAristidou PanayiotisandPiperiAnna,anddisagreedwithregardtocandidatesGeorghiadou IriniandMiltiadousPantelis.Mr.Kolo- 5 kotronisarguedthatinsteadofthosecandidatesthereoughtto havebeenrecommendedcandidatesKatselliParaskevoulaand PhilippouPhoevos.WithregardtocandidateKatselliParaskevoullahearguedthatheracademicqualificationswhicharerelevanttothedutiesofthepostofLabourOfficerFirstGradeare 10 moresignificant andhavemoreweightthantheseniorityatthe previouspostpossessed bycandidatesGeorghiadou Iriniand MiltiadousPantelis.WithregardtocandidatePhilippouPhoevoshearguedthathismeritasappearingintheconfidentialreportsissuperiorthanthatofthetwoothercandidatesandhas 15 moreweight than seniorityatthepreviouspostpossessedby candidatesGeorghiadou IriniandMiltiadouPantelis. 5.Themembers of theBoard,MessrsA.Kallimahos,A. Demetriades, K. Efrem and S. Soteriou,decided thatcandidatesGeorghiadou Irini,andMiltiadousPantelisaresuperior 20 tocandidates Katselli Paraskevoulla andPhilippou Phoevos, because they are substantially superior in seniority, and all fourabovecandidatesinaccordancewiththeconfidentialreportsof thelast twoyearsweremarkedasexcellent andpossessthequalificationsrequiredbytheSchemesofService." 25 TherespondentCommission took cognizanceof therecommendation of theDepartmental Boardatitsmeeting of the2nd October, 1986.Inthecourseofthesaidmeetingitconsideredits reportanddealtinparticularwiththecaseofParaskevoullaKatselliandPhoevosPhilippou whowerenotincludedinthelistof 30 recommendedcandidates buttheywererecommended byoneof themembersof the Board.Therespondent Commission onthe basisofthetotalityofthematerialbeforeitdecidedthatitwasnot appropriate totake into consideration for promotion theabove twocandidatesalongwiththecandidateswhowererecommended 35 1686 .3CX.R. Thalassinos v. Republic A.Loizou P. bytheDepartmentalBoard, andafter taking"intoconsiderationthe materialbefore itandonthebasisof thefindingsof the Depart mentalBoard,itdecided.toconsiderthequestionof thefillingof theabovepostonadatetobegivenlater. - **·; • 5 By meansof twoletters datedthe22nd September, 1986and ^the17thOctober, 1986,theapplicantwhohas·notbeen'recom mendedby theDepartmentalBoard,allegedthattheconfidential reports whichhavebeensubmittedinrespectofhimself werepar tialandunfair duetotheadversestandandattitudeof the report10 ing Officer from 1979 until the present day. Therespondent Commissionafterreferring theaboveletterstotheDirectorofthe DepartmentofLabourandafter obtaininghisviewsandthoseof >> thereporting aridcountersigning officers, decided atitsmeeting of the27thMarch,1987,that"onthebasisof thematerialbefore 15 itthe allegations ofGregorisThalassinos,LabourOfficer Second Grade,in theDepartmentof Labour,with regard to*his*annual confidential reportshavenotbeenestablished with sufficient cer tainty. Following thattherespondentCommission decidedthat thesaidreportswerevalidandweretakenintoconsideration. The 20 respondentCommission further decided thatthere was nothing warranting reconsideration of its^previous decision1toproceed with thefillingof thevacantpostofLabourOfficer-First Grade, Departmentof Labour,onthebasisof thefindingsof theDepart mentalBoard". 25 30 ν Atitsmeetingof the24thApriM987, therespondentCommis sion "after taking^intolconsideration all thesubstantive material before it, decidedonthebasisofthetotalityoftheestablished'cri teria(merit,qualifications, seniority),thatAnnaPiperiis superior totheremainingcandidates",anditdecidedtopromotehertothe , J abovepost . r .·"•* ν · .» - - ν : .· ϊ • Therecoursewas basedonthefollowinggroundsofLaw.1 ''(a)TherespondentCommissionfailedtoselectthemostsuita blecandidatebecause,havingregard totheestablished criteriaof merit,qualifications and seniority! the applicant was the:most 1687 A. Loizou P. Thalassinosv.Republic
(1988)suitablecandidateforpromotion. (b)Therespondent Commission,acted undercircumstances amountingtomisconceptionoffact and/orinexcessorabuseof power. (c)The respondent Commission did notduly or sufficiently 5 reasonitsdecision. (d)Therespondent Commission applied the schemesof serviceinadefectivemanner. (e)TherespondentCommissiontookintoconsiderationlegally unacceptableconfidential reportsinrespectoftheapplicant and 10 actedunderamisconceptionoffact Learnedcounselfor theapplicantinhiswrittenaddressadoptedtheabovegroundsoflawandreliedfurther onthe following groundsoflaw. 1.Thattheapplicanthasbeenexcluded asacandidatebythe 15 DepartmentalBoardbeforetheconsiderationofhiscomplaintby theCommission totheeffect thathisconfidential reports were partial. 2. Inthereportof theDepartmental Board itwasdecidedby majority nottorecommendtheappUcantwithoutanyreferencein 20 theminuteastothenumberofthemembersoftheBoardconstitutingthemajority andthereasonsfortheexclusionoftheapplicant. 3.Alsotheinterestedpartywasrecommendedbymajoritybut thereisnothinginthereportoftheDepartmentalBoardindicating 25 thenumberofthemembersoftheBoardwhoagreedordisagreed withthemajoritydecision. Comingnowtoground(a)ofthegroundsoflawinsupportof therecourse,itisbynowwellsettledthattheCourtcannotinter1688 I 3C.L.R. 5 Thalassinos v.Republic A.LoizouP. ferewithapromotion "unlessithasbeenestablishedthatthepersonnotselecteddidhavestrikingsuperiorityoverthepersonselected; andtheonusinsuchacaseliesalwaysontheapplicant (Seeinteralia,MichanikosandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 237, and Duncanv. The^Republic
(1967)3C.L.R. 153.)Inthiscasetheapplicant failed todischarge theonusthat liesuponhim,namelytoestablishstrikingsuperiorityovertheinterestedparty.Therefore ground(a)mustfail. Regarding ground (b) - misconception of fact and abuseof 10 power- theonusofproofofmisconceptionoffact liesalwayson an applicant (See Platritis v. The Republic
(1969)3C.L.R. 366.) In thiscaseapartfromthe averment of misconceptionof fact inthegroundsoflawinsupportoftherecourse,nothinghas beenputforwardonbehalfoftheapplicanttosubstantiatetheal15 legationsofmisconceptionoffact andexcessorabuseofpower. Therefore ground(b)mustfailtoo. Regardingground (c)-.absenceofduereasoning-1mustsay thatthesubjudicedecisionisnotonlydulyandsufficiently rea20· soned, butitsreasoningissupplemented bythematerial inthe file, namely theconfidentialreportsofthecandidates.Therefore ground(c)mustfailaswell. 25 30 Regardingground(d)-defectiveapplicationoftheschemesof service- nothing hasbeenput forward byapplicant tosubstantiatethisgroundwhich,forthisreasonmustfail. Dealingnowwithground(e)-theconfidentialreports-1must saythatthisgroundbringsintothepicturethequestion ofbiasof thereportingofficer againsttheapplicant Itisabasicprincipleof administrativelawthattheorgansparticipatinginaparticularadministrativeprocessmustappeartoactwithimpartiality,anditis alsoaprincipleofadministrativelawthatthelackofimpartiality byapublicofficer,againstanotherpublic.officer mustbeestablished with sufficient certainty. (See Christou v,TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.437 (FB)). · fc 1689 A.LoizouP. Thalassinosv.Republic
(1988)Further in order to establish bias, facts must be established makingitobjectively unjustforonetoreportuponanother.Facts givingrisetobiasmaytakeavarietyof forms;butinvariablyto establish acase of bias they must offend basic notions of fairness,inparticularfairplay inthisarea.(SeethejudgmentofPi- 5 kisJ.,inIoannidesv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2450;SoteriadouandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.300(FB). In thiscaseonthetotalityofthematerialbefore meithasnotbeen established thatthereportingofficer wasbiassedagainsttheapplicantorthatheshouldbetreatedasnotappearingtobeimpartial 10 withtheresultthathisparticipation intherelevantadministrative process, which led to the promotion of the interested party, shouldhavebeenregardedasafactor vitiating suchpromotion. Thereforeground(e)mustfail. Dealingnowwithground(i)ofthegroundsoflawinthewrit- 15 ten address of learned counsel for theapplicant it must besaid thatthedecisivecompetenceinmattersofpromotionsliesexclusivelywiththePublicServiceCommission.AsIsaidinMichael andAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.726(affirmed on appeal-videFrangoullidesandAnotherv.theRepublic
(1985)3 20 C.L.R. 1680),whatever theprovisions of theRegulationsgoverningthecompetence andfunctioning ofDepartmental Boards "they could not take away the competence of the respondent Commission asprovided bytheLawand theyhavetobeinterpretedinsuchawayastobeintraviresandnotultraviresofthe 25 empowering law". The Michael case (supra) wasfollowed by Sawides J., in Komodromou v. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2250,whosaid atp.2262,thatthepurpose of section 36ofthe Public Service Law, 1967,is to provide for the functions and procedure ofDepartmental Boards solely for thepurpose of as- 30 sistingthePublicServiceCommissionandnotinanywaytolimit,restrictortakeawayanyofthefunctions vestedinitunderthe Law.Tothe sameeffect wehavethejudgmentofStylianidesJ., inMytidesandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.1096at pp. 1110—1111).InviewoftheabovelegalpositionIholdthat 35 thecompetenceto.decideonthelegalityorotherwiseoftheconfidentialreportslieswiththePublicServiceCommission,anditis 1690 3C.L.R. 5 Thalassinosv.Republic A.LoizouP. quite clear that thePublic Service Commission exercised such competence attheappropriate stage.Therefore, once theorgan whichiscompetentfortheexerciseofcompetencehasdulyexercisedsame,thefact.that thesubordinate organ -inthiscasethe DepartmentalBoard-hasnotgoneintothematter,doesnotaffect atallthelegalityofthesubjudicedecision. Cominglastly togrounds
(2)and
(3)whichcan betakentogetherbecausetheyareofthesamenature,Imustsaythatthey lackanyfoundation forintherelevantreportoftheDepartmental 10 Board thereareclearlyrecorded boththeviewsof the majority and the minority. (See paragraphs 4 and 5of the report.) Itis clearfromparagraph4ofthesaidreportthatthedisagreementappearing in paragraph (b) thereof refers to the disagreement of memberKolokotronis.Anditisalsoclearfromparagraph4,that 15 thedisagreementappearinginparagraph (c)doesnotrefertoapplicantbuttothecandidatesappearinginparagraph4.Therefore both the majority and minority views have beenadequatelyre.cordedandgrounds2and3mustfail.Evenif, contrary towhat hasbeenheldhereinabove,theminorityviewswerefound notto 20 havebeenrecordeditissettledthat"minorityviewsneednotbe dulyreasonedsolongasthemajority decision,whichistheonly executoryone,isdulyreasoned andthat thedissentingmember mayaskthathisviewsberecordedintheminutes.(Seemyjudgment inDemosthenous v. TheRepublic
(1973)3C.L.R.354. 25 See,also,thejudgmentofHadjianastassiou J.,inKoraiandAnotherv.CB.C.
(1973)3C.L.R.546. 30 Inview of all the above, I hold that the subjudice decision wasreasonablyopentotherespondentCommissiononthematerial beforeitandinparticulartheconfidentialreportsofthecandidatesandtherecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartment,in -favour of the interested party, and therecoursemust therefore fail. The subjudice decision isconfirmed. Therecourse isdismissedbutinthecircumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. 35 1691