(1988)1988November4 [PIKIS, J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION. VARNAVAS CHARALAMBOUSANDANOTHER, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS, THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (ConsolidatedCasesNos. 26)187& 299187), PublicOfficers—Promotions—Qualifications—Additionalacademicqualifica tionsnotenvisagedasanadvantage in theschemeofservice—Onlyofmar ginalimportance. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Decisionbymajorityofone—Oneofthe mem bersofthe Commission votedinfavourofthe interestedpartybecause of 5 hisseniorityandofthe absenceof "strikingsuperiority"on thepartofthe othercandidates—"Strikingsuperiority" awhollyextraneousconsidera tion—Such reasoning amountedtomisconception ofthe dutytoselect the best candidate upon considerationofthethreecriteria,i.e. merit,qualifica tions,seniority. \Q PublicOfficers—The PublicService Law, 1967 (Law 33/67), section 58
(1)(a)—Dutytobeloyalandrespectthe law—Thearbitersofthedischargeof thosedutiesisthePublicServiceCommission, not K.Y.Π.(CentralIntel ligenceService)—in makinganinquiry, theCommission mayask the viewsofK.Y.Π.—Butincaseofanyadversereportbythelattertheofficer \ζ prejudicedtherebymustbegivenanopportunitytobeheard—Lackofre spectfor thelaw canonlybeevidencedbyspecificbreachesofthelaw. Public Officers—Promotions—Recordinginoldminutesofthe Commissionof adverse comments byΚ.Υ.Π. (CentralIntelligence Service) remaining in applicant'sfile—Subsequentpartofsame minutesstatedthatanyquestion 20 marksaboutthefidelityoftheofficerwere liftedandsequentiallythereto 2034 3 C.L.R. Charalambous v. Republic . applicant was promoted—Consequently,thereport of K.Y.Π. did not play anypart in thesubjudicepromotions. , ., * . Thefacts of thiscase appearsufficiently inthejudgmentof the.Court Promotion of interestedparty Kazamiasannulled. 'Recourseasfas as theother two interestedparties are concerneddismissed. Noorder as tocosts. ' CasesReferredto:' ' . • ι' ' -I ' • ' Papadopoulos v. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 1070; Papadopoulos v.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.
- 10 Recourses. Recourses against thedecision of therespondentsto promote theinterestedpartiestothepostof SeniorStoreman intheDepart mentof Storesinpreference andinsteadof the applicants. M.Christofides, for applicantinCaseNo. 261/
- A. Andreou, for applicantinCaseNo. 299/
- M,Florentzos, Senior Counselof the Republic, for the re spondents. ! 20 25 r Cur.adv. vult. ". PIKISJ.readthethefollowing judgment.Thisis anapplica tion toannul adecisionofthePublicService Commissionbyvir tueof whichthethreeinterestedpartieswerepromotedtothepost of SeniorStoreman,apositionintheDepartmentofGovernment Stores.Theapplicants were amongthe 12candidateswho were shortlisted for promotionby thedepartmentalcommitteesetup unders.36 of thePublicService Law (33/67)toscreen theeligi bility andadvise onthesuitability for promotionofthecandidates whoappliedfor thethree vacantposts. 2035 - Pikis J. Charalambous v. Republic
(1988)Themost significant grounds onthebasisof which the vitia tionof thesubjudice decision issought,arethefollowing: (a)Defectiveness of therecommendationof theheadof thede partment deriving from failure tofound it on thecriteria specified inthelaw, namely,merit,qualifications andseni- 5 ority (s.44(2>—Law 33/67). (b)Misappreciation by membersof thecommitteeand,in any event, its chairman, of the significance andimpactof the factorof "qualifications" intheselectionprocess. (c)Misconceptionbymembersof thePublicServiceCommis- 10 sion or,atleast, oneof them, of thecriteriaby reference to which theselection shouldbe made. (d)Taking into considerationorconsultingextraneous matters, specifically extracts from areportby "Κ.Υ.Π."(Central Information Service) incorporatedin previous minutesof 15 thePublicServiceCommission. Next, we shall attempttocorrelate thegrounds advanced for the annulmentof the decision tothe material facts of the case which arerecounted,albeit with brevity,below: Theoverall performance of theapplicantsandthat of theinter- 20 estedparties aselicited intheirconfidential reports,was broadly of similar worth.Therespondentsmadespecificreference to their confidential reports of the seven years immediately preceding theirselection as indicativeof theoverall contributionof thepar ties totheservice.Tocompletethepicturerelevant tothemerits 25 of the candidates,we may notethattheperformance of two of themin theyear immediately preceding thesubjudice decision, was betterthanthatof theothers. Thesecandidatesare, interested partyTheocharidesandapplicantCharalambous. Theapplicants hadacademicqualifications thattheinterested parties did not possess; in particular, Mr. Charalambous had 2036 30 3 C.L.R. Charalambous v. Republic Pikis J. passed the examination in Book-keeping/Intermediate level, of the London Chamber of Commerce,and was also in possession of a certificate in Accounting, Stage III(Advance) of the Royal Society of Arts. 1 5 10 15 20 2 c Mr.Poullis had also been successful in theBook-keeping ex amination which Mr.Charalambous had passed. The head of the department recommended thethreeinterested parties notingtheir seniority. Read inisolation, hisrecommendationcould be consid ered as defective. Nonetheless,heexplained hisrecommendation by informing members of theCommission thattheparity among candidates in'termsof merit-made seniority adecisivefactor. The inevitable inference is thathefounded his recommendation ona review of the sumtotalof material factors bearing on the selection process. "·· * • After duereflection on themarerial before them,and after pay ing due heed to therecommendations of the head of thedepart ment,'the Public Service Commission unanimously chose'inter ested parties Theocharides and Savva as the most suitable candidates for promotion.However, they were divided with regard tothechoiceof thethirdcandidatetobe selected. ' Subject tothecomplaint of Mr. Charalambous attributable to the admission of extraneous material,towhich we shall refer lat er, thechoise of two interested parties was, at theleast, reasona bly open to the respondents. Contrary to the submission made, therecommendations of the head of thedepartment are notvul nerable to be set aside for any valid reason. They were founded upondueevaluation of all facts relevant tothesuitability of candi dates. ' r ΟΛ , '<• The choice of the third interested party; namely, Cleo Kazamia, was the result of a majority decision. The chairman, and Messrs. Hadjiprodromou and Xenopoulos, decided in favour of theinterested party, whereas thetwo othermembers of theCom mission, namely Messrs. Papaxenophontos and Christodoulides, favoured the selection of Mr. Charalambous and anothercandi2037 PikisJ. Charalambous v. Republic
(1988)date,Mr.Frangou,respectively. Inexplaining hisreasonsof thechoiceof Mrs.Kazamiathe chairmanstatedthatheregardedtheadditionalacademicqualificationsof thetwo applicants asinconsequential tothechoicethat hadtobemade.Thecaselawestablishesthatqualifications addi- 5 tionaltothoseenvisagedbytheschemeofservice,areafactorof verymarginalimportance.*Ontheotherhand,itmustbeappreciated-afact notmadeclearinthestatementoftheCommission, that"qualifications" areoneofthethreefactorsdeterminativeof thechoicetobemade. Seemingly, thechairman was somewhat JQ confused on thisissue though hisoverall assessment cannotbe faulted asdefective. Ifthatwereitseffect theselection oftheremainingtwopartiesmightbecalledintoquestionfor wecanassumethatthiswastheappreciation of thechairmanoftheCommission inrelation totheimportanceofqualifications inmaking ,r thechoiceofallthreeinterestedparties. ThereasonsforthechoiceofMrs.CleoKazamiabyMr. Xenopoulosarestatedtobeherseniorityandtheabsenceonthepart of theremainingcandidatesof"striking superiority".Evidently, hemisconceived theduty ofmembersoftheCommission tose- -n lectthebestcandidateonaconsiderationoftheth*eerelevantfactors,namely,merit,qualifications andseniority.Instead,heused asayardstick forhisselectionawhollyextraneousconsideration, that of striking superiority. "Striking superiority" is the testby reference towhichtheCourtmayannuladecision notwithstanding thebreadth of thediscretion of thePublic ServiceCommission,wheneveritappearsthatthechoicemadewasindefianceto objectively ascertainable superiorityofoneormoreoftheapplicants. We do not know what the choice of Mr. Xenopoulos wouldhavebeenhadhenotmisdirected himself Thisisamatter 30 of speculation.HischoisewasdecisivefortheselectionofMrs. * (See,Papadopoulos v. Republic
(1982)3 CL.R. 1070; Papadopoulos v.Republic
(1985)3"CL.R. 405). 2038 3 C.L.R. Charalambous v. Republic Pikis J. Kazamia. Therefore, themisconception cannot be regarded as anythingotherthanmaterialfor thedecision made and, onthatac count,itmustbe annulled. Section58(l)(a)requiresofpublicservants tobeloyal andre5 spectthelaw.Loyalty goestofidelityinthedischarge of theirdu ties andthedemocraticinstitutionsof the State.Respect for the law is noneotherthanobediencetothelawsof theRepublic. The universal duty to.abide by thelaw is statutorily cast uponcivil servants as a specific obligation for the true fulfilment of their 10 mission. Years back, long before thesubjudice decision, refer encewas madeinthe minutesof thePublic Service Commission toareportof "Κ.Υ.Π." (Central IntelligenceService) tothe effect thatapplicantwas not faithfull andshowed norespectfor thelaw. Copyof thoseminutesareincludedinthe personalfileof the ap.c. plicantbutnot the reportitself.At asubsequent partof thesame minutesof thePublicService Commission,itisrecordedthatres ervations andquestion marks about thefidelity of theapplicant and his respect for thelaw, were lifted and sequentially thereto theapplicantwas promoted.Nothinginanyof thefilesbeforeme 2 0 suggests thatthose reservations surfaced again. Consequently, theill effects of thereportof "Κ.Υ.Π.",whatever theymay have been in thepast, were removed andcould nothave played any partinthe decision taken-afact confirmed by theminutesof the respondents relevant tothe sub judice decision. Therefore,the 25 complaintof applicantCharalambousmadeon thisscore, cannot besustained. 30 35 Nevertheless, Iconsider it appropriate toobserve thatthose charged tojudgethefidelityand respectfor thelaw, andgenerally thedischarge of theobligations cast onpublic servants by s. 58 (l)(a),are not "Κ.Υ.Π.", theintelligence branch of thepolice. Thearbiterof thedischarge of thoseduties is thePublic Service Commission,after dueinquiry into thefacts bearing onthe mat ter. If the Public Service Commission decides to consult "Κ.Υ.Π." onanyoccasion,theymustevaluate thematerialplaced before themandif adverse they must afford, as a matterof ele mentaryjustice, anopportunitytothepublic servant prejudiced 2039 Pikis J. Charalambous v. Republic
(1988)thereby, toanswer accusations of lack of loyalty tohis mission andlack of respectfor thelaw.Tomymind,lackof obedience to the law in thecontext of s.58(
- l)(b),can only be evidenced by breachesof thelaw onspecific occasions.One may addthatpre judicial materialof aninadmissible naturemustnotbeallowed to 5 remaininthefileof civilservants intheinterestsofjustice to their rights.Secrecy andsound administrationcannotbereconciled.I repeatthatthisis said parenthetically for, inthiscase,the report of "Κ.Υ.Π." was notinsertedinthefileof theapplicant,whereas reservations arising from its contentnotedintheminutesof the ,( PublicService Commission,weresubsequently withdrawn. For all theabove reasons therecourses of theapplicants are dismissed so far as they are directed against interested parties TheocharidesandSawa whosepromotionisconfirmed in accor dancewith theprovisions of para.4(a)of article 146of theCon- , stitution.Therecourses succeed sofar as theyaffect CleoKaza mia whose promotionis declared tobe wholly void pursuantto the provisions of para. 4(
- b)of article 146 of the Constitution. Thereshall be noorderas tocosts. Promotionofinterestedparty Kazamiaannulled. Noorderasto costs. 2040 2