clr/1988/1988_3_1897.pdf

(1988)tablishsuchsuperiorityoverinterestedparty. Public Officers—Promotions—Highposts inthe hierarchy—Discretion of Commission—Breadthof. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Qualifications—Additionalqualifications, consideredasanadvantagebytheschemeofservice—Specialreasons(appli- 5 cant'slatterreports)givenwhytheydidnotprevail. ThepromotionofthepresentapplicanttothepostofHead,PricesControlandConsumers' Protection Service,wasannulled bythiscourt(Mytidesv.TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R. 1096). TheCommissionreconsideredthematter.Itscomposition was,however,different inthattwoof its 10 members were newmembers,havingreplaced twoof thepreviousmembers. The Commission examined thequestion of thequalifications of the presentapplicant—ashisfirstpromotionhadbeenannulledforlackofdue inquiryastohisqualifications.Theexaminationwasconcludedinthepres- 15 enceofallfivemembersoftheCommission. Onceallthemembersconcludedthattheapplicantpossessedthequalificationsrequiredundertheschemeofservice,thetwonewmemberswithdrewandtheremainingthreemembersproceededandpromotedthepresent applicant Thepromotion,however,wasannulledbytheFullBench(SeeMytides v.TheRepublic

(1988)3CJ-.R.737).OnceagaintheCommissionreconsidered thematterandfinally promotedretrospectivelytothepostinquestionMytides.HencethisrecoursebyapplicantPaschalis. Thedecisionwastakenbymajorityofthreetotwo.Theimpressionsat 25 theinterviewsheldintheprocessofeffecting thefirstpromotion—annulled asaforesaid—were disregarded,astheywereheldbeforeadifferent compositionoftheCommission. Paschalis was senior to Mytides. Hewas,better qualified, having a post-graduatediplomaobtainedafter studiesof sixmonths,whichwasan 30 advantageundertheschemeofservice.MytideshadbetterconfidentialreportsthanPaschalis. Themajority oftheCommissionthoughtthattheseniorityofPaschalis andhisslightsuperiority inqualificationsasaresultofapost-graduatediplomaobtainedafterasixmonthattendanceatHague,donottiltthescales 35 1898 20 •f ·. · 3 C.L.R. * • -; ·• Paschalis v. Republic τ*. • -; !· ' ·-' r; · • .i ; < ' . . •'. - "ϊ"' * " inhis favour. ..'i ., L·' w . · * ;' "< ο » • τ Λ ι• ' ;,- . - ,.> -1 - Theissuesthatarosefordeterminationinthisrecoursewere: > „ ; • -*-.'u'. . •nj -'iy. I. ' ' ' , ;· - · · j--· .ν; (a) WhetherPaschalis hadtherequiredqualifications^ ,. , • -(b)Whether-therehasbeenadueinquiry,asregards possession byMy5 ", .<i,·.. i. itidesof therequired/Very goodknowledge of English".- Lt1 . (c)Whethe/jkiwas reasonably opentotheCommission toselect My­ tides. '(d) Whether theCommission oughttohave invited thecandidatesto ο•. ο >. >Λn e w interviews. 10 (e)Whether there-examinationought tohavebeenconductedonlyby thethreeold members of theCommission,i.e. in which case the impressionsfromtheoriginal interviews couldhavebeentaken into consideration.Therecoursewas heardby the Full Bench. ,45 Held,dismissingtherecourse:

(1)As thesubmission relating toPaschalis' qualifications fails,thedecision.was reasonably opentothe Com­ v mission and, therefore,thisCourtcannotinterfere. ' ' ' 20

(2)Thefilesof thecandidates,whichcontained'thematerialrelatingto theirqualifications, werealwaysbefore theCommission.Intheabsenceof evidence tothecontraryandohthestrengthof thepresumptionof regularity, it may be inferred thattherespondentCommission did consider the questionofthe possession by thecandidatesof thenecessary qualifications. Thereis sufficient material inthefiletojustify aconclusion thatMytides ..;•possessed"averygood knowledge of English"u t , , * -. -, :j ,.•>,-, η25 30 Inthisrespect,,oneshouldbear inmindthatMytides was found inthe past,whenhewas promotedtoanotherpost,thathehadtherequired"very goodknowledge of English".

(3)Itis theparamountdutyof theCommission toselect thebestcandi­ date.ButtheCommissiondoes nothavetoshow that'th'eone'selected was strikingly superiortotheothers.Theonusisontheapplicanttoshowthat hewas stikingly superior1totheinterestedparty.'Incases ofappointments tothehigherposts theCommission is vestedwith verywidediscretionary powerinselecting themostsuitablecandidate. / . .< Inthiscaseandinviewof Mytides*excellent reportsitwas reasonably' 1899 Paschalis v. Republic

(1988)open totherespondentCommission toprefer theinterested party.

(4)However important interviews may be in selecting acandidate the administrative organentrusted withthetaskofappointingorpromoting has tobeproperly constituted and therespondentCommission would notbeso with onlythreemembers. 5

(5)TheCommission could nothaveheldnew interviewsassuch course wouldnecessarily defeat theprinciplethatany re-examination ofadecision which was annulled by theCourtmustbe madeunder thelegaland factual background thatexistedatthetimeofsuchannulleddecision. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. *" Casesreferredto: Kolokotronis v. TheRepublic

(1980)3C.L.R. 418; Sergides v.TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R. 1116; Frangos v.TheRepublic

(1970)3 C.L.R. 312; 15 Simillis v. TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 608; Demetriades v. TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R. 1034; GeorghiouandAnotherv. TheRepublic

(1976)3C.L.R. 74; Public ServiceCommissionv.PotoudesandOthers

(1987)3C.L.R. 1591; Andronikou v. TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R. 1237; GeorghiouandOthersv. TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R.678; Panagis v.CyprusPortsAuthority

(1988)3C.L.R. 1095; Republic v.Panayiotides

(1987)3C.L.R. 1081; Kyprianou v. TheRepublic

(1967)3C.L.R. 210. 1900 20 3 C.L.R. Paschalis v.Republic Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondentsto promote theinterested party tothepostof Head, PricesControland Con­ sumers'Protection ServiceintheMinistry of Commerceand In­ dustry inpreference andinsteadofthe applicant. G.TriantqfyHides, for the applicant. A. Vladimeroiiy for therespondents!" ' ., AS. Angelidesy for theinterestedparty. ι. ι ' ' ' • fi ,' 10 15 >;• . •• T ' t !** • ' Cur. adv. vult. A.LOIZOUP. read thefollowingjudgment of theCourt.By thepresentrecoursetheapplicantseeksadeclarationof the Court thatthedecision of therespondentCommissiontopromote,the in­ terestedparty,G. Mytides tothepostof,Head,PricesConstol and Consumers*ProtectionService,inthe Ministryof Commerce and Industry,retrospectively as from the 1st April 1982, instead of (theapplicantishullandvoidandof nolegaleffect whatsoever. Thebackground tothisrecourseisasfollows: Onthe 1st,ΑρηΙ 1982, asaresult of thepromotionof the ap­ plicantPaschalis, thepresentinterested party,Mytides filedRe2Q course No. 226/82(reported,as Mytides v.The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R.'1096) for lack of due inquiry as towhether theappli­ cantsatisfied therequiredqualifications of theschemeofservice. 0 *Onthe 16thNovember 1983,therespondentCommissiondecidedtore-examinethematterbutmeanwhileitscomposition had ' changed by thesubstitution of twoof itsmemberswith twonew ones. TherespondentCommission after conductingadue inquiry.as to whether Paschalis satisfied thescheme of service,,concluded 1901 A. Loizou P. Paschalis v. Republic

(1988)on the 11thJanuary 1984,that thedegreeof theapplicantdid satisfy the relevant provisions of the scheme of service, and at the samemeeting, having found him as "superior totheother candidates",promoted applicant Paschalis. As a result, a recourse by Mytides was filed, (see

(1988)3 5 C.L.R. 737). It was held therein that thedecision challenged thereby ought tobeannulled because 1.The respondent Commission when re-examining the case was operating under the misconception that itspreviousdecision 10 wasannulled "onthesolegroundthatnodueinquirywascarried out asto whetherthedegreeofBachelor inBusinessAdministrationpossessed by the intetestedparty satisfied theschemeofservice." Thisisclearly stated'in theminutes of both themeetingof the 16th November 1983, when they started their deliberations 15 and the meeting of the 11th January, 1984, when the subjudice decision was taken. The respondent Commission instead of proceeding to examine the promotion with reference to the factual and legal background prevailing at thetime when their previous decision was taken, examined and decided in full quorum the 20 question as to whether the interested party possessed the necessary qualifications under the scheme and then, in a composition of three members only, they simply re-affirmed their decision without going afresh into themerits,qualifications and seniority of the candidates in order to reach their decision after new in- 25 quiry.

1. The respondent Commission, acting as a collective organ could not beconsidered asproperly constituted when thesubjudicedecision was reached, because though thefinaldeliberations had commenced in thepresence of allitsfivemembers whopar- 30 ticipated inthereaching of theunanimousdecision astothequalifications oftheinterested party,nevertheless atthesamemeeting, the two new members, acting under an erroneous view that they could not participate in the final deliberations, excluded them1902 3 C.L.R. Paschalis v.Republic ι · I' ' A.LoizouP. selvesformparticipatingin thefinaldecisionandleft the meeting. On the 10th May, 1988, therewas a new re-examination by the respondentCommissionof the legal and factual situationasat the .timeof the original decision. "I . 5 It proceededwith the evaluation and comparisonof the candi­ dateswhohadbeenrecommendedbythe DepartmentalBoard. It examined thematerial factors from thefileof thefillingof the post and the personalfilesandconfidential reportsuntil 1981and considered the conclusionsof the DepartmentalBoard. 10 ,Asregards the confidential reportsof the candidatesuntil 1981 itnotedthattheapplicanthadbeenratedas "Excellent" for,1979, and "Very Good",for 1980 and 1981,whereasMytides wasrated as .''-Excellent"for thethreeyears.-As far asthe othertwocandidateswere,concerned,candidate Th. .Charalambides,was rated-as "Very'Good" for 1979 and "Excellent;' for 1980 and 1981,and ' Hadjiconstantinou as "VERY GOpD" for 1979 and 1981 and, "Good'-'for
2. ./•' ' V " ' / * . ' 15 20 Without taking intoconsideration the impressions atthe inter­ views{on the adviceof,theAttorney-General) whichwerecarried outbefore.a different composition,therespondentCommission concluded thatasregards meritMytides was thebest,followed by Charalambides and lastby Hadjiconstantinou and Paschalis. . It also.considered the qualifications of the candidatesand noted • 25 Ί • I I - 'III . I 1 - J-. _ I thatHadjiconstantinou,Charalambides and Paschalis,hadapost;. graduate.qualification which,according totheschemeof service is an a d v a n t a g e , . , ' , . . * '"'·",".,.,, ' . s . ' , ' / · C 1M - > - . . . ' ; • • ' - J -<- .- - \ ; . It further found thatHadjiconstantinou was the most senior followed by Paschalis, then by Charalambides andlast by My­ tides. , . ". . ; - - . · .i. ·' L i ' 30 By amajority of threetotwotherespondentCommission se­ lected the presentunerestedparty,G. Mytides. ^
3. '" * A.LoizouP. Paschalisv. Republic

(1988)Themajority considered thatMytideswasstrikinglysuperior toHadjiconstantinou andPaschalisandthathewasalsosuperior toCharalambidesdespite thefact thathewasjuniortotheother candidateswhowerealsobetterqualified; yettakingintoconsiderationthatseniorityasregardsmanagerialpostsdoesnotplaya 5 decisiverole,themajority considered thatMytideswasthemost suitabletotakeupthepost. Inparticularcomparison toPaschaliswhohadoriginallybeen selected "the Commission noted that the striking superiority of Mytides had been diminished as a result of the equally good JQ (Very very Good) impression made by both of thembefore the Commission, nowexcludingtheimpressionfromtheinterviews asanevaluationelement,thedifference betweenthetwoisgreater andconsequently theseniorityofPaschalisandhisslightsuperiority inqualifications as aresultof apostgraduate diplomaob- , , tainedafterasixmonthattendanceatHague,donottiltthescales infavour ofPaschalis,despitethefactthathispostgraduatediplomaisaccordingtotheschemeof serviceanadvantage,nevertheless this would only play a decisive role if the twocandidates wereequal." 20 Apreliminaryobjection wasraisedonbehalfoftheinterested partyMytidesnamelythattheapplicantlackedthenecessarybasic qualifications. The respondent Commission examined the question of the qualifications oftheapplicantandconcludedonthe11thJanuary, ~s 1984, that he did possess suchqualification. As in thecircumstancesweconsiderthatitwasreasonablyopentotherespondent Commissiontodecideasitdid,theCourtcannotgivethescheme of serviceadifferent interpretation thanthatgivenbytherespondentCommission. ThesubmissionsmadeonbehalfofapplicantPaschalisarethe following: ThefirstoneisthatoncethedecisionoftherespondentCom1904 30 \ \ \ \ 3CX.R. Paschalis'v.Republic A. LoizouP. mission wasannulledtherespondentswereunderadutyto.reexaminethewholematterafresh includingthequ'esnWof whether notonlytheapplicantPaschalisbutalsotheothercandidatespossessedtherequiredqualifications ofthepostinquestion,thisbe5 ingmore'soinviewofthefact that.theFullBench'expresslystat-ed'at the*end'of their'judgment,tnat they''did not consider it necessaryto'dealwith the'othergroundsraisedintheappealand oneofthe'maihgroundsraisedbytheappellantMytideswasthe questionoftheeligibUityofPaschalis;also*itwassubmittedthat l 0 there'had beenlack'of dueinquiry asregards theknowledgeof :· Englishbythe'interestedparty.''' '' '" . ',*' ' Wefindthat sincethefilesofthecandidateswhichcontained thematerialabouttheirqualifications, wereatalltimesbeforethe respondentCommission,ohthepresumptionofregularity,itmay beinferred, in theabsence ofevidencetothecontrary, thatthe 15 respondentCommission'did considerthequestionofthepossession by'thec'andidates'of thenecessary qualifications. Alsowe findasregardsinterestedpartyMytides;thatthereis'sufficient ma·. terialinhisfilewhich,asstated'above,wasatallrelevant times 20 before the respondent Commission'tojustifyTa conclusion that suchinterestedpartypossessed "averygoodknowledgeofEnglish", including aGeneral Certificate of Education (G.C.E.) in EnglishLanguage,OrdinaryIievel/passed withgradeA,awardedinJune 1982,stampedasreceivedbytherespondentCommis25 siononthe6thSeptember 1982'(Red54,53inhisPersonalFile): aridalso,'asitappearsintheMinutesofrespondentCommission' {c ofr22nd:January 1976(Red 24)in'relation topromotions tothe postof IndustrialOfficer inthesameMinistry,'itfound after an oral interviewinEnglish that'Mytidesdidpossess "avery good' 30 knowledge of English" which wasan essential requirement for ' ,J" ' n thatpost,towhichhewasasaresultpromoted. · RelevanttothisiswhatwasstatedinKolokotronisv. Repub/ic'

(1980)3C.L.R/418atpp.'426^427: " **v ^ i j l *'J"' v 35 "Oneof themaingroundson whichcounselfor the'appli- "* -canthasreliedisthatthe'Commissionhasfailed tocarryouta' 1905 [ A.Loizou P. Paschalisv.Republic

(1988)properinquiryinordertoascertainwhethertheinterestedparty possessed a 'very good knowledge of English', which isan essentialrequirementundertherelevantschemeofserviceSince,therefore,theinterestedpartywasinitiallypromoted to the post of Industrial Relations Officer, 1stGrade - from which hewaslater promoted tothepost of Senior Industrial RelationsOfficer -itmaybeinferred,onthebasisofthepresumption of regularity, that hehadbeen found on thatoccasiontopossess'anexcellentknowledgeofEnglish andGreek' (see, in this respect, inter alia, Antoniou v. TheRepublic

(1975)3C.L.R.510);therefore,therespondent Commission, when it stated in its minutesdatedJanuary 2, 1979,that,in promotingtheinterested partytothepostofSeniorIndustrial Relations Officer, it was satisfied 'having regard tohislong andsatisfactory serviceintheGovernment'thathedidpossess therequired qualification of aVerygoodknowledge ofEnglish'it,presumably,hadinmind,amongotherthings,that,as alreadystated,hehadbeenearlieronpromoted tothepostof Industrial Relations Officer, 1stGrade, in relation to which there was required 'an excellent knowledge of English and Greek." SeealsoSergidesv.Republic

(1988)3C.L.R.1116; Thesecondandthirdsubmissionsarethatthereasoninggiven bythemajority foritsdecisioniswrong,inthattoomuchimportancewasgiven totheconfidential reportsof thecandidatesinstead of toall aspectsrelating toeachcandidate,namely,confidentialreports,qualifications (post-graduate),seniority,andalso, in.viewofthepreviousdecisionsoftherespondentCommission, theinterestedpartycouldnotnowbefound tobesuperiorinmerit,bymerelydisregardingtheinterviews. Wefindthatasitisevidentfromtheminutesofthe respondent Commission, all aspects were dulyconsidered and special reasoningappearsthereinfor disregardingtheapplicants*seniority andpostgraduatequalification whichundertheschemeofservice 1906 10 15 20 3 C.L.R. Paschalis v.Republic A.LoizouP. was only an advantage. t ' ι • *'» - ! ' • " " '.. ' i . N< V. It is theparamountdutyof the respondentCommissionwhen selecting acandidatefor promotion to select the mostsuitableone and inthecaseof appointments tothehigherposts the Commis5 sion is vested with very wide discretionary powers in selecting the most suitable candidate.Secfrangos v.Republic (197,0) 3 .C.L.R. 312 &i3&i?Similiis v. RepMic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 608 at 'p!613;Demetri'ades v.Republic 0988) 3C.L.R. 1034'. Moreo­ ver one should not loose sight of the fact that therespondent in Commission doesnothave toshow thattheinterestedpany was strikingly superiortothe othercandidates.(SeeGeorghiou v. Reu pubUc'(i9i6) 3C.L'.R.74 at p. 83,'* ' V . Λ "" ι ·;/ ·, (l Ί -> v /· M+ff _,"Ί f , r . ι j "i • /"*..• ' '· "As itappearsfromthe case-law inGreece,which*is_setput ''* in 'Έπιθεωρησις Δημοσίου Δικαίου κάί Διοικητικού jT5 Δ ι κ α ί ο υ " (Review ofPublic and Administrative Law) 1965, vol. 9, p. 369, when an organ, such as the Public Service Commission, selects a candidate on the basis of comparison , i . , w , . i . : J ..-;«.(.* • ' 3 1 ' " . . (A.ip . · . ; · * . · , n L u . - i .. _ , . with others,itis not necessary to show, in order tojustify his selection, that he was strikingly superior to the others. On the ~Λ other hand, an administrative Court cannot intervene in order to set aside the decision regarding such selection.unless itis .satisfied, byan applicanun a recourse before it, that he was an * eligible candidate who was strikingly superior tothe one who ., was selected, because onlyin such acase the organ which has •£,J f made the selection for the purpose of an a p p o i n t m e n t ^pro'motioh'is deemed to have exceeded.the outer-limits ofits discretion and, therefore, to have acted in excess or abuse of its , ,y powers; also, in such'a situation the complained of decision of "the organ concernedis to be regarded as either lacking due rea30 soning or as based on unlawful or erroneous orotherwise inM , .valid reasoning. 1 n i l · . . • ι° ι *', vJ · : ι ι '*' ' „ Useful reference, in this respect, may be made to the Con­ clusions from the Case-Law ofthe CouncilofState in Greece, 1929-1959, p. 268, arid to^the decisions of such Councilin 35 "LJ' cases 601/Ϊ956, 778/1956 and"277/19'64. " ' 1907 f A.Loizou P. Paschalisv.Republic

(1988)ThisCourthasfollowed thesameapproachinanumberof cases,suchastheEvangelou case

(1965)3C.L.R.292,atp. 300;andofcourse,theonusofestablishinghisstrikingsuperiority liesalwaysontheapplicantinarecourse(seeGeorghiades and Another v. The Repubic

(1970)3 C.L.R. 257, 5 269)." Weconsiderthatinviewofhisexcellentreportsitwas reasonably opentotherespondent Commission toprefer theinterested party. The third submission is to theeffect that the procedure fol- io lowed by therespondent Commission is wrong. It wasargued that only thethree old membersought tohavere-examined the matterafresh aftertakingtheinterviewsintoaccount;andthatthe postbeingwhatitis,theinterviewsweremostimportanttoascertainwhetherthecandidateshadhighadministrativeabilities. ^ No doubt wealso consider, asit.has alsobeen held by this Courtinnumerousoccasionsthatinterviewsareanimportantfactorinascertainingacandidate'spersonality,abilitiesandsuitability for a particular post, more soin the case of high executive postswheresuchqualitiesareimportant.(SeeThePublicService 20 Commissionv. MarinaPotoudes and Others

(1987)3C.L.R. 1591; Andronikou v. The Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1237; GeorghiouandOthersv.Republic

(1988)3C.L.R.678;Panayis v. CyprusPorts Authority

(1988)3C.L.R. 1095.See also the Full Bench decision in Republic v. Panayiotides,

(1987)3 25 C.L.R. 1081.Nevertheless the administrative organ entrusted withthetaskofappointingorpromotinghastobeproperlyconstituted and the respondent Commission would not be sowith onlythreemembers. InthecaseofKyprianou v.Republic

(1976)3C.L.R.210at 30 213itwasheld: "Theprinciplesgoverningthevalidityofdecisionstakenby acollectiveorgan with adefective composition wereconsid1908 3 C.L.R. Paschalis v. Republic A. Loizou P. ered in thecase of Pissas v. TheRepublic

(1976)3C.L.R. 30 where reference is made toanalogous situations inGreece, as set outin Kyriacopoullos, Greek Administrative Law, 4thEd. vol. Β p. 23 and the Conclusions of the Case Law of the Greek Council of State (1929-1959) p. 110. They are to the effect thatinordertoconsider acollective organ as duly com­ posed, it is not sufficient if the'members necessary toconsti­ tute a quorum are present. Itmust also be clearly shown that the administration madepossible thepresence of all members of the organ by inviting them in time to be present at such a meeting. On theother hand,if a member or members are ex­ cludedon anerroneousview thatthey could notparticipateat such ameeting,thecollective organ inquestion cannotbecon­ sidered as properly composed when anadministrative decision is taken even if there is quorum and, therefore, such decision 10 1* should be 'annulledon theground of wrong composition of the organ."' In thecircumstances,therespondent Commission rightly reex­ amined thematteras itdid by disregarding the impressions.creat?" 'ed by thecandidates at theinterviews which took place before it under adifferent composition. Nordo we consider thatnew inter­ viewscould be madebefore therespondentCommission underits new constitution as such course,would, necessarily defeat the principle that any re-examination of a decision which was an25 · nulled by the'Court must be made under the legal and factual background thatexistedatthetime'of such annulled decision. , Forjall theabove reasons therecourse fails(and is hereby dis'missed butin thecircumstances'there will be hoorderas tocosts. 30 ,; It ' ' .i - - > . , ' ! -.ι •· . „ >*Recoursedismissed. • J * ,.. -*' T.r:'· : - Noorder as tocosts. i ' '..-..: . • . ··/i'j\ .··. i /'/. .. I.T · . , /, h · · /· " .,.,<*. ·' I' w. ' '!* . t st Ί -.• " • '. I.VJJ )ι· -.·"- * ' j . , , •·*> , jj-.t• • . · ' ' : ' ' I s " 1/ / ; * ' ί I ' M ' 1 f'.ll. . 1909 .- ' - • :T %• _..'