3 C.L.R. 1988September 17 [HADJITSANGARIS.J.] ,INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION CONSTANTINOS P.ANDREOU, ^ Applicant, v. . . ^ , THE REPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICECOMMISSION, t> , Respondent. (CaseNo. 299/85). Public Officers—Promotions—^leddofDepartment—Recommendations of— Disregarded inviewof theinterestedparty's better confidentialreports— Recommendations based on'fact of applicant's seniority, which was not substantial—inthecircumstancestherequirementofspecialreasoningfor notfollowing therecommendationssatisfied. Public Officers—Promotions—Striking superiority—Applicant, in order to succeed, shouldestablishsuchsuperiority. + ". In thiscasetherespondentCommission did not follow theviewsof the Headof the Department, whohad recommended theapplicant,·in view of ^ the latter's seniority. The Commission gave as a reason for doing so the betterconfidential reportsof theinterested party,coupled with thefact that applicant's seniority wasnot substantial. Held,dismissing iherecourse:
(1)Theapplicant wasrecommended by theHead of the Department'solely on accountof seniority which as found by theCommission wasonly very sligtitwhereas thereportsof theinterested party wereclearly better. These findings of theCommission which are stated in itsminutescanbeconsidered assufficient reasoning in thecircurnstancesof thecase.,, ,, , 1765 Andreou v. Republic
(1988)
(2)Moreovertheapplicanthasfailed todischargetheburdenofestablishingthatheisstrikinglysuperior totheinterestedpartysoastojustify theinterventionoftheCourtinhisfavour. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto cosls. 5 Casesreferredto: Constantinou v.TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R.498. Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondents topromote theinterestedpartytothepostofSeniorBailiff inpreference and 10 insteadoftheapplicant. Chr.Pourgourides,fortheapplicant. P.Hadjidemetriou,fortherespondents. A.S.AngelideSy for theinterested party. Cur. adv.vult. 15 HADJITSANGARIS J.readthefollowingjudgment.Bythe presentrecoursetheapplicantseeksadeclarationoftheCourtthat thedecisionoftherespondentPublicServiceCommissiontopromotetheinterested party MikisMichaelidestothepostofSenior Bailiff asfrom 15.11.1984inpreference toandinsteadofhimis 20 nullandvoidandofnoeffect whatsoever. Thepostof Senior Bailiff isapromotion post andaDepartmentCommitteewassetupundertheprovisionsofsection 36of the Public Service Law 1967 (Law 33/67). The Departmental Committeeon 13.9.1984after consideration of thelistofcandi- 25 dates and all particulars pertaining to each oneof themrecommendedinalphabeticalordertotherespondentCommissiontwo candidatesnamelytheapplicantandtheinterestedparty. 1766 3 C.L.R. Λ(·" Andreou v. Republic Hadjitsangans J. • " , | t ' i · . . *;ir ' i i f t ' . ! ' ' i .'.*-• • ' The Commission at its meeting on 2.11.84 heard theviews and recommendations of· the Chief Registrar'of the Supreme CourtMr.AndreasOlymbioswhostated>thefollowing: "ΣυστήνεταιοΑνδρέου Κωνσταντίνος.Τόσοαυτόςόσο και ο άλλος;ϋποψήφίοςΜίκης Μιχαηλίδηςείναι καλοί στα καθήκοντα τους, προτείνεται όμωςκαι'συστήνεται λόγω αρχαιότητοςο Ανδρέου. Ο Ανδρέου υπηρετεί στο ' ΕπαρχιακόΔικαστήριοΛεμεσού: ΟΜιχαηλίδης υπηρετεί --στοΕπαρχιακόΔικαστήριοΠάφου.Ηφέτεινήμέχρισήμε•ρααπόδοσηκαιτωνδυοείναιπερίπουηίδιαως.και·πέρυ-; "σι." •· : '· · • - • " * *. ' ι' • «...·-· (Englishtranslation) •"Andreou Constaritinos is recommended:-Both heahd'the othercandidateMikis'Michaelides aregoodih-theperformance •'of their-duties butAndreou is preferred'and recommended on ' • account'of seniority. Andreou serves atthe''District Courtof - Limassol. Michaelides serves attheDistrictCourtofPaphos.; Theperformance of bothduring thisyearis approximately the sameaslastyear." -*" -·*• '•"• -< ; -•''· '' » • -.I.-J. ..' TheCommission then^proceededtomakems ownassessment andafter ageneral evaluation of thecandidatesarid~a comparison between themitreachedtheconclusion thattheinterestedparty was superior totheapplicant and"decided-topromote-h'irntothe post of'Senior Bailiff.1' · ·« • .·.*'.*.; '. * Inreaching itsdecision topromotetheinterested party inpre ference totheapplicanttheCommission statedinitsminutes that itconsidered the confidential reportsofbothcandidateswhich are ! t asfollows: · *- • * ' •·' »·"*$'„**'' " *" - • •'' 'f •/ /> . .;· ,i . ·>' ν • . ! J ·*: " '\. 1.Andreou Constantinos-1981 - Very Good (0-10-0) 1982-Very Good(0-10-0) ' '- •' ''• '1983 - Excellent (8-2-0) ' 1767 '"' Hadjitsangaris J. Andreou v.Republic
(1988)- InterestedParty -1981 -Excellent (10-0-0) 1982-Excellent (10-0-0) 1983-Excellent(10-0-0) Andnoted that the interested party hasclearly superior confidential reports than theapplicant for thelastthreeyears. 5 Asregards seniority therespondent noted that theapplicant is slightly senior to the interested party. They were both promoted to their present post as from 15.2.83 but the applicant was appointed tohispreviouspost ofBailiff 2ndGradeon 1.3.69while theinterested party wasappointed on 15.7.
- 10 The Commission having taken intoconsideration theabove as well as the qualifications of thecandidates found that itwas not possible toadopt therecommendationsof theChief Registrar and having concluded on the basis of the established criteria that is merit, seniority and qualifications, that the interested party was 15 superior to the applicant, decided topromote him to the post of Senior Bailiff as from 15.11.84.The applicant feeling aggrieved of thedecision filed thepresentrecourse. In his written address learned counsel for the applicant states his legal grounds of grievance asfollows: 20 a. That therespondent Commission acted incontravention to therecommendations of theHeadof theDepartment withoutproviding special reasoning for taking such an exceptional course whileit wasunder aduty todoso. b. Failed toconsider properly theoverall picture of thecandi- 25 dates and paid undue weight toonly one of therelevant factors that should have been taken intoaccount namely the confidential reports. c. Failed to pay due weight to the fact that the applicant had seniority overtheinterestedparty. 1768 30 3 C.L.R. Andreou v. Republic Hadjitsangaris J. Counselfortheapplicantinexpandingallhislegalgroundsin hiswrittenaddressarguedmakingreference todecidedcasesthat therecommendation of theHeadof theDepartment isthemost importantfactortobetakenintoconsideration andcannotbedis5 regardedwithoutspecialreasonsandthesub-judice.decisiondoes not provide the special reasoning required. He alsoargued that theconfidential reportswerethedeterminingfactor intheminds of therespondent andthatthefinding of therespondent thatthe confidential reportsof theinterested party were byfar betterto 10 thoseoftheapplicantwasnotwarrantedbythematerial'beforeit. Counsellastlyarguedthattheslightsuperiorityoftheinterested partyinhisconfidential reportsisoutweighed bytherecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartment infavouroftheapplicant andthetwocandidatesbeingthusmoreorlessequalinmeritand 15 qualifications theapplicant'sseniorityshouldhaveprevailed. 20 25 30 35 Counselfor therespondent ontheother handarguedrelying ondecidedcasesinsupportofhisargumentsthattherecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartmentdonotbindthePublicServiceCommission whichcandepartfrom themgivingitsreasons for doing so,that thesub-judice decision isdulyreasoned,that thereasoningcanbealsosupplementedbythematerialinthe file andthatitwasreasonablyopentotherespondent toarriveatthe sub-judicedecision. Ihavecarefully consideredthecontentsoftheconfidentialreportsinrespectoftheapplicantandtheinterestedpartyespecially for theyears 1981,1982,1983andthereisnodoubtthattheinterestedpartyhasbetterconfidential reportsthantheapplicant.I therefore find that thefindingof therespondent in this respect wasreasonably open toit.Asregards seniority, theseniorityof theapplicantovertheinterestedpartyisonlyveryslight(about4 1/2months).ThePublicServiceCommission asstatedinthecase of Constantinou v. The Republic
(1984)3C.L.R.498 atpp. 501-502whichwascitedbycounselfortherespondentare:"the arbitersofmanningthePublic Servicebyappointment andpromotion.Theycandepartfromtherecommendationsofthedepartmentalheadwhenevertheyconsiderthiscourseconducivetothe 1769 Hadjitsangaris J. Andreou v.Republic
(1988)interests of the service". However, the Commission must reason itsdeparturefromtherecommendations of thedepartmental head. In thepresent case it isobvious that theapplicant wasrecommended bytheHead of theDepartment solelyonaccount of seniority which as found by the Commission was only very slight 5 whereas the reports of the interested party were clearly better. These findings of theCommission which arestatedinitsminutes can beconsidered, in my view,as sufficient reasoning in thecircumstancesof thecase. Moreover the applicant has failed todischarge theburden of 10 establishing that heis strikingly superiortotheinterested party so as tojustify the intervention of the Court in his favour. In proceedings such asthepresentrecourse thisCourt will not interfere with theexerciseof thediscretion by therespondent Commission in makingpromotions ifthedecision oftheCommission wasrea- 15 sonably open to it in the circumstances of the case. And in the present instance on the basis of the material that wasplaced before the Commission and is now before me it was in my view reasonably open totherespondenttoarrive toitssub-judice decision. For all thesereasons therecourse isdismissed but with noorder as tocosts. Recourse dismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1770 20