(1988)1988SepiemberS [PIKIS,J.J INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASCHRISTOFI, Applicant, v. THEMUNICIPALITYOFNICOSIA, Respondent. (CaseNo. 444186). ActsordecisionsinthesenseofArt.146.1 oftheConstitution—Appointments oncontractforalimiteddurationtoalocalauthority—Testapplicable. ConstitutionalLaw—Equality—Constitution, Art. 28—Exclusionfrom appointmentstoaMunicipalOfficeongroundofoverqualification—Violation oftheprincipleofequality. 5 Officersoflocal authorities—Appointments—Scheme ofservice—Exclusion fromappointmentongroundofoverqualification—Abuseofpower. Thetwoquestionsraised inthisrecourseare:(a)WhetheranappointmentoncontracttothesubjudicepostintheMunicipalityfor thelimited periodof oneyearisjusticiable underArt 146.1of theConstitution,and 10 (b)thelegitimacyoftherespondent'sdecisiontoexcludetheapplicant from beingconsideredforappointmentonthegroundthathewasoverqualified. Held,annullingthesubjudicedecision.
(1)Thecontractualcharacterofanappointmenttoapublicpositiondoes notofitselfremovetheactfrom therealmofpubliclaw.Ifthesubjudice 15 decisionisintendedtopromoteoneormoreofthepurposesofapublicauthority,theactionretainsitspublic lawcharacter.Inthiscasetheappointmentoftheinterestedpartieswasinextricablyconnectedwiththeobjectives oftheMunicipalityofNicosia,thelocalauthority. 1722 3 C.L.R. • ; ' ChristoΓιv. Nicosia Municipality
(2)Aschemeofservicelaysdowntheminimumqualificationsnecessary forappointment toapost Exclusion ofacandidate whopossesses r thosequalifications amountstoaviolationofthelegislativeframework'gov erningtheexerciseofthediscretionarypowersof theAdministration. 1 5 10 ^ t r
(3)Moreover, thedistinctionisarbitrary. Itconstitutesabreachofthe right toequality.Theclassification ofcandidatesand theirgroupinginto categories forpurposes of employment,beyond therequirementsofthe schemeofservice,dependingontheleveloftheirformaleducationreflects archaic notions of social stratification incompatible with theconceptof equality.Anysuggestion thatacandidateistoogoodforaparticularpost does,inanindirect way,subordinate therighttowork tosocial status peggedtoformaleducation. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 15 Casesreferredto: Paschalidou v.TheRepublic
(1969)3C.L.R. 297; ' ' ' *' Vassiliou andothersv.TheRepublic
(1969)3C.L.R.417; Mahlouzaridesv. TheRepublic
(1985)3OLA. 2342; Antoniou v.TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R. 623; 20 Mavronichisv. IndustrialTrainingAuthority
(1986)3CUR.2213; HadjiKyriakouv. HadjiApostolou, 3R.S.C.C.89; Valana v.TheRepublic;3 R.S.C.C. 91; Republic v.ΜDM. Estate
(1982)3CJ-.R.642; Kalisperasv.MinisterofInterior
(1982)3CJL.R.509; 25 TheHellenicBankv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 381; ' Republicv.ArakianandOthers
(1972)3CJLX..294; ApostolidesandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1982)3CLR. 928. 1723 Christofi v.NicosiaMunicipality
(1988)Recourse. Recourseagainst thedecisionof therespondenttoexcludeap plicantfromconsiderationfor appointmentonthegroundthathe was over-qualified for thepostofTechnicalAssistant. P.VrahaSyfor theapplicant 5 K.Michaelides, for the respondent. E.Lemonaris, for interestedparty Sp.Sophocleous. Λ.5.Angelides, for interestedparty Y. Aspri. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. The fate of this re- 10 courseturnsonthelegitimacy oftheaction oftheMunicipalityof Nicosiatoexcludetheapplicant, aUniversity graduate, fromcon siderationfor appointmentonthegroundthathewasacademical ly over-qualified for thepostofTechnicalAssistant,aposition on thelowerrankof theestablishementof theTechnicalDepartment 15 of thecorporation.Theonlyotherquestionthathastobedecided, preliminary tothemerits of thecase,is thejusticiability of this subjudicedecision,inparticularwhetherthedecision of the Mu nicipalityinvolvingtemporary appointmentsofoneyearduration was adecisiontakeninthedomain ofpubliclaw. 20 Therespondentsadvertised theposition inthepressandinvi tedapplicationfor thefillingoftwopostsintheTechnicalDepart ment of the Authority. Seemingly therespondentsregarded the employmentof twoTechnicalAssistantsasnecessary for theac complishmentof thefunctions oftheTechnicalDepartment,not- 25 withstanding theexistenceofonlyoneorganicpost.Itwas inthe contemplationof therespondentstoappointoneof thetwocandi datesthatwouldbe selectedonapermanentbasisafter theexpira tionofthecontractualappointment. 1724 3C.L.R. Christofi v.NicosiaMunicipality PikisJ. Theschemeofservice'stipulatingthequalifications andconditions forappointmentrequired: •. .. 5 (a) A diploma of the Higher.Institute of Technology oran equivalentqualification inCivilEngineeringorArchitecture,that is,aqualification ofhighereducation,albeit,oflesserstatusthan aUniversitydegree;orinthealternative. * ' • -(b)ALeavingCertificateofaSecondarySchool,preferablya TechnicalSchool. 117-candidates applied for the position. Of them only 78 turneduptotakethewrittenexamination setbytherespondents totesttheknowledge andabilitiesof thecandidates.Interested PartySpyroullaSophocleousandtheapplicantperformed bestat theexaminationscoring270and247marksrespectively,outofa total of 350 marks.The second interested party, Y.Aspris,se15 cured201marksand.waslisted 13thinorderof success:Onthe basis of theresults of the written examination a short list was compiled that included theapplicant and theinterested parties. Thereafterthecandidatesnamedthereinwereinvitedtoanoralinterview. ' *. * ..'•'«.. 10 20 · ·Notwithstanding theprocedurefollowed, theapplicantandas faraswemaygather,othercandidateswhoheld-aUniversitydegreewereexcludedfromconsiderationforappointmentforpolicy reasonsfoundedontheviewthatitwascontrarytotheinterestof theservicetoappointUniversitygraduatestolowpositionsinthe 25 hierarchy. Past experience persuaded the respondents thatappointment ofUniversity graduates tolowpositionscreatedtensionandoften ledtoinsubordination arisingoutofunwillingness onthepartofUniversity graduatestofollow theinstructionsof superiorswhowerenotlikewisequalified. 30 Justiciabilityofthesubjudicedecision: . . CounselforinterestedpartySpyroullaSophocleoussubmitted thatthesubjudicedecisionisnotamenabletoreviewbecauseit 1725- PikisJ. Christofi v.NicosiaMunicipality
(1988)concernscontractualappointmentsmadetomeetextraordinaryor emergencyneedsofthemunicipality.Thisstatementisnotwhollycorrectfor it appears thatoneof the twotemporary appointmentswasmadeagainstanorganicpost. Thecontractualcharacterofanappointment toapublicposition does not of itself removetheactfrom therealmof public law.Ifthesubjudicedecisionisintendedtopromoteoneormore ofthepurposesofapublicauthority,theactionretainsitspublic lawcharacter, andcanbeclassified assuchforpurposesofjudicial review under Art. 146of the Constitution. This waspronounced,tobethelawbytheFullBenchoftheSupremeCourtin AntigoniPaschalidouv.Republic*. InMahlouzaridesv.TheRepublic**:, theFullBenchoftheSupremeCourtmadeaneffort to define whatdistinguishes thepublicfrom theprivatedomain for purposesofreviewofadministrativeaction.Treadingonthelines set forth inAntoniou v.TheRepublic*** theyindicated thatthe purposeintended tobeservedandpromotedbytheactionofthe Administration istheprincipalconsiderationforthepertinentclassification of an act ordecision****. Aninevitable inference in thiscaseisthattheappointmentoftheinterestedpartieswasinextricablyconnectedwiththeobjectivesoftheMunicipalityofNicosia,thelocalauthority.Consequently,aproperselection wasdirectly conducive to the attainment of those purposes with the public having a corresponding interest in the achievement of thoseends.HencetheactionoftheAdministrationsoundedinthe domainofpubliclawandassuchissubject toreviewunderArt. 146.1oftheConstitution. *
(1969)3 C.L.R.297.SeealsoBnmanuet Vassiliou & Others v.Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R.417. **
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2342. ***
(1984)3C.L.R.623. ****SeealsoHadjiKyriacouv.HadjiApostolou, 3RSCC89, atpp.90-91;Valanav. The Republic,^ RSCC 91.atpp.93-94;Republic v. MDM. Estate
(1982)3 C.L.R.642(F.B.)JCalisperas v.Ministry ofInterior
(1982)3CLJ*. 509; The HellenicBankv.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 381. 1726 3 C.L.R. , Christofi v. Nicosia Municipality The Merits of the Decision. 5 ,yi\ Pikis J. · >' '>nr Thedecisionof:theMunicipalityraises.a fundamental question of public lawconcerning, on theonehand, thepowerof theAdr ministration tolaydown.Iimitations totheappointment ofperson^. nelotherthan those laid down in a scheme of serviceandon the other,andperhapsmoreimportantly,theapplication ofthenotion of equality,before the Administration safeguarded byArt.28.1of theConstitution. - * In Mawonichis v.Industrial Training Authority*, Triantafyl10 tides, .P.,observed there is nojustification in law for the exclu-' sionofcandidateson accountof highqualifications. Heremarked "If such anapproach isupheld andprevails itwill be calamitous for all thosewhobecauseof scarcity ofjobs they are praiseworthily prepared to be employed even at posts;below the level of 15 theirqualifications" (p.2216). 20 25 Ordinarily academicqualifications, additionaltothoserequired by the scheme of service,confer an advantage on the holder,albeit amarginal one. The exclusion of acandidate,on the ground thatheisover-qualified constitutesaplainabuseofpower aswell asabreachof theconstitutional right of thecitizen toequalityof treatmentby the Administration. Aschemeof.service laysdown theminimum qualifications necessary for appointment.to apost. Exclusion of a candidate who possesses those qualifications amountstoaviolation of thelegislativeframework governingthe exercise of thediscretionary powersof the Administration. The offspring of such abuse cannot but be invalidated as"illegitimate action stemmingfrom abuseaswellasexcessof power. Moreimportantly theexclusionofacandidateonaccountofan arbitrarydistinction constitutesabreachofoneofthe fundamental 30 rights of thecitizen,namely,thatofequality before theAdministration, safeguarded by Art. 28.1 of the Constitution. The ex- *
(1986)3 C.L.R.2213. 1727 Pikis J. Christofi v. Nicosia Municipality
(1988)elusion ofcandidates from appointment onthegroundthatthey areacademicallyoverqualifiedconstitutesanarbitrary differentiationthatcannotbesupportedonprincipleorauthority*.Theclassificationofcandidatesandtheirgroupingintocategoriesforpurposesofemployment,beyondtherequirementsoftheschemeof 5 service,dependingontheleveloftheirformaleducation reflects archaicnotionsofsocialstratification incompatiblewiththeconcept ofequality and tomy mind unsound.Formal education,it must be appreciated, is not the only source of knowledge. Knowledgemayalsobeacquiredbyprivateeffort,keenobserva- 10 tion andalertnesstowhatgoesonaroundus,aswellasbyexperience.Knowledge broadens one's vision and improves one's abilitytocopewithproblems.Theusefulness ofknowledgeisinterwovenwithone'sabilitytoputitproductivelyintoeffect inthe performanceof hisduties.Anysuggestion thatacandidateistoo 15 good for aparticular post does,in anindirect way,subordinate the right to work to social status pegged to formal education. Classification, accordingtosuchcriteria,hasnorationaljustificationandcannot becountenanced butasabreach of therightof equality of treatment, an attribute of sound administration.The 20 factthatinthepastthemunicipalitynoticedsignsofinsubordination onthepartof academically qualified personnel tosuperiors whowerenotlikewisequalified,offered nogroundfortheexclusionoftheapplicant.Aninsubordinateemployeemay,nodoubt, bedealtwithdisciplinarily. 25 Fortheabovereasonsthesubjudicedecisionisannulled.Itis declaredtobewhollyvoidandofnoeffect pursuanttotheprovisionsofArt. 146.4(b) of theConstitution.Lettherebenoorder astocosts. Subjudice decision annulled. 30 Noorderastocosts. * See,intwalia.Republicv.Arakian & Others
(1972)3C.L.R.294;Apostolides & Othersv.Republic
(1982)3C.L.R.928. 1728