(1988)1988 February3 [LORIS.J| INTHEMATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ALECOS CHRYSOSTOMOU, Applicant, ν THEEDUCATIONAL SERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent (CaseNo 268/84) Educational officers—Promotions—Qualifications—Additional qualifications notenvisagedasanadvantageintheschemeof service—Do notindicate by themselves striking superiority, but should be weighed together with all othercircumstances Educational Officers—Promotions—Confidential reports—inthecircumstan ces, the Commission was entitled to accept thefacts andstatements con tainedthereinattheirface value Educational Officers—Promotions—Interviews, performance at—Evaluation of, on basis ofpersonal notes of members of Commission—Whethersuch notes ought tohavebeen recorded—Question determinedin thenegative1 0 (Angebdou ν Republic)
(1982)3 C LR 520 distinguished) Educational Officers—Promottns—Striking superiority—in this case appli cantsfailed toestablish suchsuperiority The facts of this case sufficiently appear from thejudgment of the Court, whereby the recourseof theapplicant, impugning thepromotion of the interested parties tothe postof InspectorA Secondary Education,were dismissed Recourse dismissed No order as tocosts 202 20 3 C.L.R. Chrysostomou v.E.S.C. Casesreferredto: Frangoullides(No. 1) v. TheRepublic
(1965)3C.L.R. 20; Angelidouv. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 520; Markidesv.TheEducationalServiceCommittee
(1983)3C.L.R.750; HadjiAntoniv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.1145; Georghiou v. TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R.74; Hjiloannou v. TheRepublic
(1983)3 C.L.R.1041. Recourse. 10 Recourse against thedecision of therespondent topromote the interested parties tothepostof Inspector A,Secondary Education inpreference and instead ofthe applicant. L. Papaphilippou,for theapplicant. R. Vrahimi-Petridou (Mrs),for the respondent. A.S. Angelides, for interested party G. Poullis. ** Cur. adv. vuli. LORIS J. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse the applicant impugns the decision of the respondent Educational Service Commission to promote, in preference to and instead of him, the interested parties to the present proceedings G. Poullis and P.Papazachariou, to the post of Inspector A,Secondary Education. The applicant and the interested parties were, on 29 October 1983, when the vacancies in the post of Inspector A' were advertised, Headmasters in secondary Education, and had 203 Loris J. Chrysostomou v. E.S.C.
(1988)applied, together with other ninecandidates, for promotion to the two vacant posts of Inspector A' , relating to the subject of Physics. The respondent Commission decided to call for interview thosequalified undertherelevant scheme of service; theinterview 5 was held on8 March
- On 15 March 1984 in evaluating the performance of the candidates during such interview, on the basis of the personal notes of its members, the Commission graded the applicant as "very good" and theinterested parties as "excellent". 10 Therelevant meeting of theCommission for the filling of the post was held on 6 April 1984, and the material part of the minutes of thatmeeting read asfollows: "Η ΕπιτροπήΕκπαιδευτικής Υπηρεσίας αφού μελέτησε τους προσωπικούς και εμπιστευτικούς φακέλλους των υποψηφίων καιέχονταςυπόψητις σχετικές διατάξειςτου Νόμουκαιτων ΣχεδίωνΥπηρεσίας αποφασίζει ως εξής: 15 (γ) Θέσεις ΕπιθεωρητήΑ' Μέσης Εκπαίδευσης (γιατα Φυσικά). 20 Η Επιτροπή Εκπαιδευτικής Υπηρεσίας με βάση την αξία, τα προσόντα και την αρχαιότητατων υποψηφίων και λαμβάνονταςυπόψητις υπηρεσιακές εκθέσεις, τις συ στάσεις τουοικείουΤμήματοςκαιτηνεντύπωσητηνοποία αποκόμισε απότηνπροσωπικήσυνέντευξη (Βλ. Πρακτικά 25 15/3/84) βρίσκει ότι, οι κ.κ. ΠαναγιώτηςΠαπαζαχαρίου (ΠΜΠ.2630)Διευ θυντήςΣχολείων Μέσης Εκπαίδευσης(ΓυμνάσιοΑραδίππου) και Γεώργιος Πουλλής (Π.Μ.Π.3535) Διευθυντής Σχολείων Μέσης Εκπαίδευσης (Γυμνάσιο Πεδουλά)είναι 204 30 3 C.L.R. Chrysostomou v. E.S.C. Loris J. οικαταλληλότεροιγιατιςθέσεις αυτές. 5 Ο 5 Κι οι δύοέχουν εξαίρετηβαθμολογία"(39-37 και 3939,αντίστοιχα).Έχουν επιπρόσθετα απότααπαιτούμενα απόταΣχέδιαΥπηρεσίας προσόντα(οκ.Παπαζαχαρίου έχει Diplomain Advanced Studies M.E.D.και Ph.D. καιο κ. Πουλλής Diploma in Advanced Studies Post Graduate Diploma inPh.D.).Έχουνσυστηθεί από τοοικείο Τμήμα και υπερέχουν σε αρχαιότηταέναντι όλων τωνυποψη φίων (οκ.Παπαζαχαρίου έχει προαχθείσε θέση Διευθυντή από9/11/81 και ο κ. Πουλλής από 1.9.82) και είχαν εξαίρετηαπόδοσηκατάτηνπροσωπική συνέντευξη. Μεβάση ταπιο πάνωηΕπιτροπήομόφωνα αποφασί ζει να προσφέρει προαγωγή στη θέση Επιθεωρητή Α'στους κ.κ. ΠαναγιώτηΠαπαζαχαρίου και Γεώργιο Πουλλήαπό1.7.
- (English Translation: 20 "The Educational Service Commission having examined thepersonal andconfidential reportsfiles of thecandidatesand bearing in mind the relevant provisions of the Law andthe Schemesof Service decides asfollows: (c) Postsof InspectorA1 Secondary Education(for Physics). 25 30 TheEducationalService Commission onthebasisofmerit, qualifications and the seniority of thecandidates and taking into accounttheservice reports, therecommendations of the appropriate Departmentand theimpression formed from the personal interviews (vide Minutes 15.3.84)findsthat, Messrs. Panayiotis Papazachariou (PMP. 2630) Headmaster Secondary Education (Aradippou Gymnasium) 205 Loris J. Chrysostomou v. K.S.C.
(1988)and Georghios Poullis (PMP. 3535) Headmaster Secondary Education (Pedoulas Gymnasium) are the most suitable for these posts. Both of them have excellent grading (39-37 and 39-39, respectively). They have additional to the required by the 5 Schemes of Service qualifications (Mr. Papazachariou possesses a Diploma in Advanced Studies, M.Ed, and Ph.D and Mr.Poullis a Diplomain Advanced Stuties, PostGraduate Diploma and Ph.D.). They have been recommended by the appropriate Depanment and they are superior in seniority over JQ all the candidates (Mr. Papazachariou has been promoted to post of Headmaster on 9.11.81 and Mr. Poullis on 1.9.1983) and they hadexcellent performance at theinterviews. On the basisof theforegoing the Commission unanimously decides to offer promotion to the post of Inspector A' to 15 Messrs Panayiotis Papazachariou and Georghios Poullis as from 1.7.84. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent Commission failed toevaluateproperly thequalifications, merit, 20 experience, ability and seniority of the applicant and,on thebasis of such criteria, topromote him,as hewas strikingly superior to the interested parties and the most suitable candidate for promotion and, therefore, the Commission in promoting the interested parties, acted inexcessor abuse of powers. 25 From a comparative table attached to the Opposition (exhibit "IC" )which contains particulars in relation tothe qualifications, service,seniority and theconfidential reportsof theapplicant and the interested parties and from all other material placed before the courtinthisrespectitappearsthat: The applicant possesses a Diploma in Physics of tKe^ University of Athens, a Diploma in Science Education (Leeds) 206 30 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 ™ ^e ™ Chrysostomou v. K.S.C. Loris J. Associate of the Institute of Education (London), M.Ed. (University of Manchester) and a Certificate in Education/ Planning (Moray House of Education). He was appointed to the post of Headmaster Secondary Education on 5 September 1983 and till then he had twenty years of service. In his last two confidential reports he hasa ratingof 38, 39marks. Interested party G. Poullis possesses a Diploma in Physicsof theUniversity of Athens,a Diploma in Advanced Studies,aPh. D. (Physics) and a Postgraduate Diploma in Educational Management and Administration (Moray House, Edinburgh). He waspromoted tothepost of Headmaster Secondary Education on 1 November 1981 and till 31August 1983he had nineteen years of service. In his last two confidential reports he has a rating of 37,39 marks. Interested party P. Papazachariou possesses a Diploma in Physics of the University of Athens, a Diplona in Advanced Studies (Manchester), a Ph.D. (Manchester) and a M.E.D. (Exeter).He was promoted tothe post of Headmaster Secondary Education on 9 November 1981 and till 31 August 1983 he had twenty - three and a half years of service. In his last two condidential reports hehasrating of 39,39marks. As regards qualifications counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent Commission failed to ascertain that the interested parties were notqualified under therelevant schemeof service or that in any case applicant's additional qualifications were superior tothose possessed by theinterested parties. In accordance with paragraph 2 of the relevant scheme of service (exhibit 1 "B") in addition to the basic qualifications "Postgraduate training in educational matters or in a subject connected with thedutiesof thepost lasting atleastone academic year" isrequired aswell. Counsel for theapplicant argued inthisrespect, that thePh.D. possessed by theinterested parties isit Science and, therefore, it 207 Loris J. Chrysostomou v. E.S.C.
(1988)could not betreated asan additional qualification ineducation. In view of the material placed before the respondent Commission and, particularly, the fact that interested party Poullis possesses a Postgraduate Diploma in Educational Management and Administration and interested party 5 Papazachariou a Degree of Master of Education, it was reasonably open to the respondent Commission to treat both interested parties as qualified under the relevant Scheme of Service. Any other additional qualifications in education possessed by the applicant do not indicate by themselves that he 10 was a strikingly superior candidate but should be weighed together with all othercircumstances. Regarding the confidential reports counsel for the applicant alleged that in respect of the year 1980-1981 the marks of interested party Poullis were corrected from 38 to 39 without an 15 objection having been filed by him and without the proper procedure having been followed, whereas it has to be noted that theobjection of theapplicant against hismarksfor theyear 19831984 was dismissed. The contention of counsel for the applicant about the 20 unauthorized correction in the confidential report of interested party Poullis is not supported bythe material in the personal file of this interested party. From blue 151 it appears that the interested party lodged an objection in respect of hisratingfor the year concerned as a result of which the relevant correction was y,effected. Since no irregularity in the preparation of such confidential reports wasestablished they werecorrectly taken into account by therespondent Commission inevaluating themeritsof the candidates. Reference may bemade inthisrespect tothe case of Frangoullides (No. 1) v. The Republic,
(1965)3 C.L.R. 20, where it was pointed out (at p.28) that" the Commission was entitled to accept the statements of fact and opinions expressed in those reports on their face value and was not required, having regard to the circumstances of the case, to investigate the matter further and to try to substantiate or refute 35 208 3 C.L.R. Chrysostomou v. K.S.C. Loris J. thecorrectnessor accurary of such facts andopinions". 5 10 15 20 2^ 30 As to the impression formed by the Commission at the interview counsel for the applicant argued that the notes of the members of the Commission on which they based themselvesin evaluating the performance of the candidates at the interview should have been recorded so that the Court would have been able tojudge whether the Commission had arrived correctly at such evaluation. And he referred, in this respect, to the caseof Angelidou v.The Republic,
(1982)3C.L.R. 520. Asfar as this argument isconcerned Iam of the view that the respondent Commission isnot bound torecord in its minutes the details contained in their notes about the impressions formed at the interview and reference may be made, in this respect, to the cases ofMakrides v.The EducationalServiceCommittee,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 750, 761 and HadjiAntoni v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1145, 1153. The Angelidou, case, supra, referred to by counsel for the applicant in support of his contention is clearly distinguishable from the present case on its own particular circumstances. Having in mind everything that hasalready been said aboveI have formed the view that the applicant, on whom the burden is cast,failed toestablish thathewasastrikingly superiorcandidate (see, in thisrespect, Georghiou v.TheRepublic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74, 83 and Hjiloannou v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041, 1045) and, further, that in view of the seniority of the interested parties over the applicant, and all other considerations, it was reasonably open totherespondent Commission toprefer, instead of him, asmore suitable for promotion the interested parties. Itistobepresumed thattheCommission inarriving atthe sub judice decision has taken all relevant material regarding the candidates before it into consideration and has evaluated them properly. It has been further argued on behalf of the applicant that the sub-judice decision isnotduly reasoned. 209 Loris J, Chrysostomou v. E.S.C.
(1988)I am unable to agree with such contention because the reasoning.appears sufficiently in thedecision itself and may also be supplemented by the material contained in therelevant files, which were before theCommission at thematerial time and were produced asexhibits before me. Finally Iwill dismiss summarily thecontention ofcounsel for the applicant that he was treated in a discriminatory manner because of his trade union activities, as such allegation has not been substantiated norcan itfindsupport from thematerial before me. Concluding, Imust state that it should be borne in mind that this Court cannot substitute its own discretion to that of the Commission but can only intervene when the organ concerned has exceeded the outer limits of its discretion or had acted in excessorabuseof powers. I am not, satisfied that this is so in the present case and, therefore, in view of the foregoing the present recourse is hereby dismissed. Having given to the matter my best consideration I havetomake noorderastocosts. Recourse dismissed. Noorderastocosts. 210