clr/1988/1988_3_2041.pdf

(1988)However, theinterested party hadbetterconfidential reports thanthose of theapplicant Further,theCommission notedthatalthough theinterested party in theconfidential reportsfor himwas assessedas "good" in theitems "Co-operation/Relations" during 1979 and 1984, he was assessed as "very good" in those items in 1980 and 1981 and as "excellent" in 1982 and 5 1983.With regard to"leadership ability" he was assessed as "excellent" in all years, since 1979. Thereports from 1978 to 1983 hadbeen prepared by thesaid Headof theDepartment. The performance of thecandidates at the interviews was rated as fol­ lows: Applicant, almost very good, interestedparty,very very good. 10 Interested party raised apreliminary objection thattheapplicantdidnot possess therequired qualifications for thesubjudice post. Held,dismissing boththepreliminary objection andtherecourse:

(1)Theinterpretationand application of die schemes of service is the task of theappointing organ andthisCourtwill notinterfere with thefindingsof such organ onceits discretionary power inthis respect was reasona­ bly exercised. Onthematerial before theCourt,.theconclusion is thatinthis case it was reasonably open totheCommission toconsider theapplicantas qualified. 15

(2)Theperformance of thecandidatesat theinterviews, was not,onits 20 own, thedecisive factor in thepresent case,but was coupled with the pic­ turepresentedby theconfidential reports.Having regard tothenatureof the post and the wide discretionary powers with which the respondentCom­ mission is vested regarding selections in high posts in the public service, theweight placed by therespondentCommission atthe interviews was not 25 an undueonein thecircumstances.

(3)With regard totherecommendations of theHeadof the Department, therespondentCommission gavesufficient reasons for its departure from themandsuch reasons arenotcontrarytothematerial which was before the Commission. • Recoursedismissed. Noorder as to costs. Casesreferredto: lerides v.TheRepublic

(1980)3C.L.R.

1. Ϊ 2042 30 3 CiL.R. Serghis v. Republic Recourse. " *- • --' Recourse against thedecision of*therespondentsto promote theinterestedparty to'thepostof Directorof theDepartmentof Agriculture andNaturalResources in preference andinsteadof the applicant. Κ.Michaelides, for theapplicant.' · ., ι A'.Tapasawas, Senior Counselto theRepublic, for there-· ·'·" spondents. - · • ·...»•. : ., '*•'"" . ' . . . ' · * Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ.read thefollowingjudgment. Theappli­ cant by this recourse challenges thedecision of therespondent Commission published in the Official Gazetteof theRepublic, dated"the20th September, 1985,by which Constantinos Phokas, theinterested party, was'promoted tothepostof Directorofthe Department of Agriculture, in theMinistry of Agriculture and NaturalResources,asfrom the15th September, 1985,'instead of andinpreference totheapplicant. *'-' The'applicantisholdingthe postof Headof AnimalHusband­ ry, towhich hewas promotedonthe 1st May,
2. The inter­ ested party was, atthematerial time,holding thepost of Senior Agricultural Officer, towhich hewas promotedonthe15thDe­ cember,
3. • * • < · . . * Avacancy inthepost'of DirectorintheDepartmentofAgricul­ ture,which is afirst entry andpromotionpost,was publishedin theOfficial Gazetteof theRepublicdatedthe31st May,
4. As aresult,six applicationsweresubmitted,amongstwhichthose of theapplicantandtheinterestedparty. >' "' '· TherespondentCommission,having considered theapplica­ tions,found thatall candidatespossessedtherequired qualifica­ tionsanddecidedtoinvite themfor aninterview. After theinter2043 DemetriadesJ. Serghis v.Republic

(1988)views were concluded, the Director-Generalof the Ministry of Agriculture andNaturalResources,who was present duringthe interviews, assessedtheperformance of thecandidates and rec­ ommendedtheapplicantasfirstandtheinterestedpartyassecond choice. 5 TherespondentCommission thenmadeits own assessment of theperformanceof thecandidatesduring theinterviews andpro­ ceeded, after considering theviewsof theHeadof the Department andtheseniority of thecandidates,toselect theinterestedpartyas themostsuitable candidatefor thepostinquestion.(Seethemin- JQ utesof themeetingof therespondentsdatedthe2ndSeptember, 1985,which is Appendix 6totheOpposition).Thepromotionof theinterested party was published intheOfficial Gazetteof the Republicdatedthe20th September, 1985,asaresult of whichthe presentrecourse was filed. *c Therecourse is based ontheground that therespondent Com­ mission failed initsparamountdutytoselect the best candidate. Before embarking on theissueraised, Iwill deal with a pre­ liminary issueraised by counselfor theinterestedparty,which is totheeffect thattheapplicantdoesnotpossessalegitimateinter- 20 est tofilethis recourse in thathedoes notpossessthe qualifica­ tionsrequiredbytheschemeofserviceandinparticularaUniver­ sityDegreeortitlein Agriculture. Itis aprincipleof administrative law thatanapplicant cannot pursue arecourse against apromotiontoacertainpost unless he 25 himself possesses thequalifications required by the scheme of servicefor thatpost. Theacademicqualifications required by theshemesof service for thepostinquestionare: "Πανεπιστημιακό Δίπλωμαήτίτλος εις την Γεωπονι- 30 κήνή άλλοθέμα στενώςσχετιζόμενονμετηνΓεωπονικήν, ως καιμεταπτυχιακήεκπαίδευσις μονοετούς τουλάχιστον 2044 3 C.L.R. Serghis v. Republic DemetriadesJ. διαρκείας". .("University DiplomaorTitleinAgriculture orother subject closely related toAgriculture, as well as postgraduate educa­ tionof atleast oneyear'sduration.") 5 10 15 20 25 The qualifications of theapplicant appear in Appendix 6(en­ closure 7) totheOpposition as well as in thepersonal file of the applicant which is exhibit 1A before theCourt.These are:Diplo­ ma in Dairying, University of Nottingham; NationalDiplomain Dairying, Royal Agricultural Society of England; ScottishDiplomainAgriculture of theEdinburg andEastof Scotland College of Agricultural, Scotland;NationalDiplomaintheScience andPrac­ tice of Agriculture, U.K., and M.Sc. degree in Animal Science, of the Oklahoma StateUniversity, U.S.A. Theinterpretationand.application of theschemes of service is thetask of theappointing organ and this Courtwill not interfere with the findings of such organ once its discretionary power in thisrespect was reasonably exercised. All thequalifications of theapplicant were inhis personal file, which was before therespondent Commission, which found that they satisfied the provisionsofthe schemes of service. On the material before me.and bearing in mindthattheapplicant posses­ ses an M.Sc. in a relevant subject, I find that it was reasonably open totherespondent Commission toconsider the applicant as satisfying theprovisions of the.schemeof service with regard to qualifications. Thepreliminary objection raised by counsel for the interested party is, therefore, dismissed. • J. Iwill now proceed with themerits of the case. 30 Counsel for theapplicant argued that bearing in mind the fact that the two parties were holding different posts, the applicant holding a higher post than that held by the interested pany, the confidential reports of the applicant ought to havebeen consid­ ered as better than those of the interested party. Counsel main2045 Demetriades J. Serghis v. Republic

(1988)tained thattheapplicant, whoissuperiorinmerit, qualifications and seniority,andalsohadtherecommendationsoftheHeadof the Department, ought to have been preferred to the interested partyandthattherespondentCommissionplacedundueweightto theperformance ofthecandidatesduringtheinterviews. 5 Iconsiderituseful heretomakesomemoredetailreferenceto theproceedingsoftherespondentCommissionduringitsmeeting datedthe2ndSeptember, 1985,atwhichthesubjudicedecision wasreached. Atthismeeting,theHeadoftheDepartment,ingivinghisrec- 10 ommendations, stated thatbearinginmindthenatureofthepost and the seriousresponsibilities oftheDirector, Mr.Serghis,the applicant, was,in hisopinion, themost suitable.He placed the interestedpartyassecondinline,statingthatregardingadministration,approachtopersonnelmattersandco-operationwithother ^ colleagues,theinterestedpartywasinferiortotheapplicant. After the Head of the Department departed the respondent Commission madeitsown assessmentof theperformance ofthe candidatesandassessed theapplicantas"almostverygood"and theinterestedpartyas"veryverygood"andstrikinglysuperiorto 20 allothercandidates.TherespondentCommission thennotedthat theinterestedparty wasstrikingly superiorwithregardtoconfidentialreports.Italsonotedthatalthough!theinterestedpartyin the confidential reports for him was assessed as "good" in the items "Co-operation/Relations" during 1979 and 1984,he was ~s assessed as "very good"in thoseitemsin 1980and 1981andas "excellent"in 1982and 1983.Withregardto"Leadershipability" hewasassessedas"excellent"inallyears,since1979. Therespondent Commission then,after notingthattheconfidential reports of the interested party from 1978 to 1983were ™ prepared bytheDirector-GeneraloftheMinistrytowhichtheinterestedparty wasseconded for aspecific project, proceeded to statethatitdidnotloosesightoftheviewsoftheHeadoftheDepartment regarding the comparison of the two candidates but 2046 3 CX.R.• 5 ^ 15 20 25 Serghis v.Republic Demetriades J. found the interested party better in his confidential reports and wasparticularly impressed byhisanswersduring theinterview in mattersofadministration,organization and supervision of theDepartment.Therespondent Commission alsonoted theseniorityof theapplicant andproceeded,onthebasisof theestablishedcriteria,toselecttheinterested party. The picture appearing from the confidential reports, with the exception of thosefor 1984,isthattheinterested party wasbetter thantheapplicant, beinggenerallyratedas "excellent"inallyears since 1979.Therespondent Commission also found that the interested party was better during the interviews and its members were particularly impressed by his answers. Although particular importance wasplaced bytherespondent Commission totheperformance of the candidates during the interviews, this was not, on its own, the decisive factorin the present case, but was coupled with thepicturepresented bytheconfidential.reports. Inany event,havingregard tothenatureof thepost andthewidediscretionary powers with which therespondent Commission isvested regarding selectionsin highpostsin thepublic service,the weight placed by therespondent Commission at theinterviews was not an undue one in the circumstances (see lerides v. Republic, l

(1980)3C.L.R: 165,at p\ 183). ;. ' Withregard totherecommendations oftheHeadoftheDepartment, therespondent Commission gave sufficient reasons for its departurefromthemand suchreasons arenotcontrary tothematerial which wasbefore the Commission. Bearinginmind allthecircumstancesof thecase,Ifindthatit wasreasonably open totherespondent Commission toreach the subjudicedecision and,inany event,theapplicantfailed toshow 30 .striking superiority overtheinterested party. ' - » * • » • ' • - * ' Asaresult, thisrecourse fails andishereby dismissed. In thecircumstances, therewill benoorder asto.costs: _ * Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. 2047 - .•