clr/1988/1988_3_2093.pdf

(1988)to thepost of Assistant Assessor 1stGrade andAssistantAssessor2nd Gradearechallenged. Twoofthequestionsthatwereraisedfordeterminationwerewhether theprovision of theschemeofservice,hereinafterreferredto,was,ultra viresthePublicSendeeLaw,1967(Law33/67),sections29and30,and 5 whetheritwascontrarytotheprincipleofequality,safeguardedunderArt. 28. Therelevantschemeof servicedefined thepostofAssistantAssessor 1stgradeasafirst entryandpomodonpost.Thispostwascombinedwith thepostofAssistantAssessor2stgrade.However,invirtueofaprovision 10 inthesaidschemetheonlypersonsthatcouldbeappointedasfirstentrants tothefirst of thesaidpostswerethose,whoservedfor atleasttwoyears onscaleA.7ascasualAssistantAssessors. Theotherissuesthatwereraisedfordeterminationinclude: (a)ThequestionwhethertherespondentCommission,onceitdecided toholdwrittenexaminations,couldchangeitsmind. 15 (b)Thequestionwhethersomeofthecandidatespossessthenecessary qualifications forappointmenttothesubjudicepost (c)ThequestionwhethertheCommissionattachedundueweighttothe performanceofthecandidatesattheinterview. 20 (d)Thequestion whetherthedelayinrecordingtheimpressionsatthe interviews(theinterviewswereheldbetween4thand 13thofOctober,whereassuchrecordingwasmadeon 16thofNovemberofthe sameyear)couldleadtoannulment,and (e)Thequestionoftheeffect ofthefactthattheHeadoftheDepartment 25 evaluated theperformance atworkofcandidateswhowerecasual employeeswhilsthefailedtoevaluatetheperformanceoftheapplicantswhowerepublicofficers. Held:

(1)TherelevantprovisionintheschemeisnotultraviresthePublicService OQ Law,33/67.Theschememakesprovision bothforpromotionandfor first entryappointments,thoughinthelattercase,thosequalifiedbelongtoalimitedclassofpersons. 2094 3 C.L.R. Yiallourides v.Republic

(2)Theprincipleofequality doesnotpreclude theadoptionof reasonable differentiations. Thisis ihecaseherebecauseof thedifference between thesalaryofthoseservingonscaleA.7 andthesalaryoftheothercan­ didates,whowere,also,servinginthePublic Service. 5 10 15

(3)TheCommissionisfree toregulate itsownprodecure.Therewasnoth­ ing irregular inthedecision toreverseitsprevious decision relatingto theholdingofwrittenexaminations.

(4)Theacademicqualifications ofthreeoftheinterestedparties weresuch •asto lead to theconclusion thatunless they passed theGovernment Qualifying Examinations they were not qualified forappointment. Sincetherewas nothingintheirfilesaboutsuchexaminations,theirap­ pointmentshavetobeannulledforlackofdueinquiry intotheir qualifi­ cations. >

(5)Inthelightofthedecision inPublicServiceCommission v. Potoudes andOthers

(1987)3C.L.R. 1591 thedelay in recording theimpres­ sionsattheinterviewswas notsuchastoleadtoannulment.

(6)Bearing inmindthatthepostofAssistantAssessor2ndGradeisaFirst Entrypost,theweightattached totheinterviewswas notanundueone inthecircumstances. ι 20

(7)TheHeadof theDepartmentevaluated theperformanceatworkofthose officers who wereworkingintheDepartment.Thenon evaluationof clerkssecondgrade was reasonable sincetheywereperforming differentduties. Appointmentsofthreeinterestedpartiesannulled. Recoursesasregardstheothersubjudiceappoint­ 25 mentsdismissed.Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Mikrommatis v. TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C. 125; Constantinouv.TheRepublic

(1966)3CLJ*.572; 2095 Yiallourides v. Republic

(1988)GeorghiadesandAnother v.TheRepublic

(1966)3CJL.R. 827; Lazarouv.TheRepublic

(1968)3CJ-Jl, 129; PublicServiceCommission v.PotoudesandOthers

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1591; Nicolaidou v.PublicService Commission

(1985)3C.L.R.

1. Recourses. Recourses against thedecision of therespondents to appoint theinterestedparties tothepostofAssistantAssessor 1st and 2nd Gradeinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. E.Efstathiou, forapplicantinCase No. 677/
2. 1 ϋ E.LemonariSyforapplicantinCaseNo.680/
3. Ph.Valiantis, forapplicantsinCasesNo. 18/85 and45/
4. A.S. Angelides,for applicants inCases Nos.39/85 and 69/
5. A. Vladimirou, forrespondents. A. Boyiadjis, forinterestedparty E.Yiassemides. E. Hadjieftychiou,for interested parties Th. Christodoulou and St. Theofanous. E.OdysseoSy forinterestedparty Ch.Gavrielides. D.ParachrysostomoUyforinterestedparty A.Anastassiou. Cur. adv.vult. 20 HADJTTSANGARISJ.readthefollowingjudgment All these recourses have been heardtogetheraspresenting commonques2096 3C.L.R. Yiallouridesv.Republic Hadjitsangaris J. tionsoflawandfact Theapplicantschallengethedecisionofthe respondent,publishedintheOfficial GazetteoftheRepublicdatedthe9th November 1984,whereby theinterested partieswere appointedtothepostsofAssistantAssessor1stand2ndGradeas 5 from the 1stNovember, 1984,insteadofandinpreference tothe applicants. Thenamesof allinterested partiesappearin theattachedappendix.Interested parties 1-12, inclusive,wereappointed tothe postofAssistantAssessor1stGrade,whilstinterestedparties 1310 27tothepostofAssistantAssessor2ndGrade. Applicant in case No.69/85,Heraclis Thrassyvoulou, challengestheappointmentofall27interestedparties. Applicants incases Nos.677/84,AndreasYiallourides,680/ 84,CostasKalaidjis and39/85,KleanthisKleanthous,Sophoulis 15 Agapiou,AlexiaLiatsou,EvdokiaNicolaouChrysostomou,Andreas Polonos,AndreasChrysostomou, Georghia Andreou and SophiaIoannou,challenge theappointment of interestedparties 13-27inclusive. 20 ApplicantsincasesNos. 18/85and45/85,AndroullaApostolidou andMariaNicolaidou,challengetheappointmentofinterestedparties 14-27inclusive. Thefactswhicharecommontoallcases,areasfarasrelevant thefollowing: Ontrie24thofApril, 1982,anumberofvacanciesinthecom25 binedpostsof Assistant Assessor 1stand2ndGradein theDepartmentofIncomeTaxwereadvertisedintheOfficial Gazetteof theRepublic(appendix9totheopposition).ThepostofAssistant Assessor 1stGrade is aFirstEntry and Promotion post, whilst that of Assistant Assessor 2ndGradeis aFirstEntry post.The 30 matterwasreferred toaDepartmentalCommitteewhichwasset upfor thepurpose.Byitsreport,whichwassubmitted totherespondentbyletterdatedthe5thJanuary, 1983;thesaidCommit2097 Hadjitsangaris J. Yiallouridesv.Republic

(1988)teerecommended 189candidates,amongstwhomtheapplicants and theinterestedparties.Duringitssubsequentmeetingstherespondent considered thereport oftheDepartmental Committee andexcluded7ofthecandidatesrecommendedbyitasnotsatisfying therequirementsoftheschemesofserviceregardingquali- 5 fications.Therespondentalsohavingoriginallydecidedtoinvite thequalified candidatesfor aninterviewlaterrevokedsuchdecisionanddecidedtoconductwrittenexaminations,butfinallyrevertedtoitsoriginaldecision.Theinterviewstookplacebetween the4th andthe 13thOctober, 1983,inthepresenceoftheDirec- ,, toroftheDepartmentofInlandRevenue. Atitsmeetingdatedthe 11thNovember, 1983,therespondent heardtheviewsoftheHeadoftheDepartmentregardingtheperformance of thecandidates during theinterviewsaswell asthe performance atworkofthoseservingascasualemployeesinthe , Department.Atitsnextmeetingdatedthe 16thNovember,1983, therespondentmadeitsownevaluationoftheperformance ofthe candidatesduringtheinterviewsandhavingmadeageneralevaluation andcomparison of thecandidatesproceeded totheselectionof52candidatesamongstwhomtheinterestedparties,forthe 2l filling ofanequalnumberofposts(appendix40). However,beforethecommunicationofthedecisiontothepersons interested, theprocedure for thefillingof anumberof the postsinquestion wasterminatedandthatfortheremainingposts suspended,upontherequestoftheappropriateauthority. 2 Therespondent metagain onthe9th August, 1984,uponthe requestoftheappropriateauthrorityforthefillingof30vacancies in the postsconcerned. Atthat meetingtherespondent reconsideredthematterandafteranewevaluationandcomparisonofthe candidatesconcernedselected30candidates,amongstwhomthe ^ interested parties,for appointment tothevacantposts(appendix 47).Theappointments werepublished intheOfficial Gazetteof theRepublicdatedthe9th November 1984,asaresultofwhich thepresentrecoursewere filed. 2098 ν 3 C.L.R. 5 10 1 5 Yiallourides v. Republic Hadjitsangaris J. As stated earlier, by five outof the six recourses, the appoint­ ment of 15 persons to thepost of Assistant Assessor 2ndGrade only.is challenged, whilst by the sixth, No.69/85, theappoint­ ment of another 12 persons tothepost of Assistant Assessor 1st Grade is also challenged. I will deal first with that part of re­ course No. 69/85, by which theappointment of the 12interested parties tothepostof Assistant Assessor 1st Gradeis challenged. Counsel for the applicant in this respect argued that the schemes service are ultra vires the Law, especially sections 29 and30,in that,by note

(3)(b)thereof, theapplicantis treatedina discriminatory way vis a vis the interested parties who have a privileged treatment,andalso,thatthepostof Assistant Assessor 1st Grade is notin fact aFirstEntry andPromotion post butonly a Promotion post since theonly persons whocould have claimed thepost asfirstentrantsaretheinterested parties for whom aspe­ cial provision was made. The applicantin case No. 69/85 holds and was holding atthe materialtime,thepost of Collection Officer 2ndGrade.Theinter­ ested parties were appointed as Casual Assistant Assessors in 1979. Although the applicantdoes notpossess the qualifications prescribed by theschemeof service for thepost of Assistant As­ sessor 1st Gradehepossesses a legitimate interest topursue this recourse in view of thefact thathe is challenging thevalidity of such schemes. 25 The schemesof service, being infact a form of subsidiary leg­ islation,mustconform with theprovisions of theenabling law. Section 30

(1)of thePublic Service Law, Law No. 33/67, pro­ vides as follows: 3ο "30.-(l) Δια τους σκοπούςδιορισμούή προαγωγής αι θέσειςδιαιρούνται ει£τας ακολούθους κατηγορίας: (α) . : 2099 Hadjitsangaris J. Yiallourides v. Republic

(1988)(β)θέσεις ΠρώτουΔιορισμούκαι Προαγωγής, ειςτας οποίαςπρόσωπα μητελούνταεντηδημοσίαυπηρε­ σία δύνανται ναδιορισθώσιν ήυπάλληλοι δύναν­ ται ναδιορισθώσινή προαχθώσι." And thetranslation inEnglish: 5 ("30.-(l)Forthepurposes of appointmentorpromotion the posts aredivided inthefollowing categories: (a) (b)First entry and Promotionposts, towhich persons not in thepublic servicemay beappointedorofficers may beappointedorpromoted.") 10 Having carefully considered theprovisions of the schemeof service for thepost of Assistant Assessor 1st Grade,Ifind that theonly instancein which aperson may beconsidered as afirst entrant is in the case of casual Assistant Assessors serving on 15 scale A7 and having 2 years service. This,however, is not con­ trary totheprovisions of section 30(l)(b). Thecategory of the post has been defined in the scheme of service as a FirstEntry andPromotion,inaccordance with theprovisions of s.30

(2)and the scheme does in fact make provision both for Promotionand 20 First Entry cases, even though for a limited class of persons. I therefore find nomeritinthispartof theargumentof counsel for applicants. Theotherleg of hisargumentconcernstheprivilegedtreatment of theinterestedparties which springs outof theprovisions of the 25 scheme of service thusrendering thesaid provisions unconstitu­ tional. Again Ifind nomerit in this part of counsel's argument. As Ihave found earlier theprovisions of thescheme of service are notoutside thecontext of thelaw. As aresult theapplicant, who does not belong to any of thecategories referred toin the 30 scheme of service, does notpossess alegitimate interest toraise this point. In any event, as stated by the Courtin a number of 2100 3 C.L.R. 5 10 ιc Yiallourides v. Republic Hadjitsangaris J. cases, an instance of discrimination can only arise if different treatmentismetedoutintwo.cases whicharesimilar inall materi­ alrespectsanddifferentiations whicharereasonably warrantedby theinherent natureof thingsdonotamounttodiscrimination underArticle 28oranyotherArticle oftheConstitution.(SeeMikrommatis and the Republic, 2.R.S.C.C. 125;£onstantinou v. Republic

(1966)3C.L.R.572). In thepresentcase,theprovisions of note

(3)(b)which alleg­ edly creatediscrimination against candidatesbelonging to other categories (thatiscategories A(l)(a)andA(l)(b))canbereasona­ bly differentiated inthatcandidatesundernote

(3)(b)arealready serving in,thepost of Assistant Assessor,although ona casual basis, onscale A7, which is thesamescale as thatof thepostof Assistant Assessor 1st Grade. Inthecase underA(l)(

1. a)and A (0(
2. b)theeligiblecandidatesmust beserving in thepost of As­ sistantAssessor 2ndGrade,whichcarries alower scale (A4).A differentiation astotheyears of service required inthetwo cate­ gories is thereforereasonable. FortheabovereasonsIfind thatthisargumentofcounselfails and as aresult thefirst partof recourse No.69/85,by whichthe appointmentof interested parties 1-12, inclusive to, thepostof Assistant Assessor 1stGradeischallenged,is dismissed. 25 3" Sincetheapplicantdoesnotpossessthequalifications required by thescheme of service for thepost of Assistant Assessor 1st Gradenoquestionof comparisonbetwen himandinterestedpar­ ties 1-12 arises.Butinanyevent,if Iwas tocomparethemagain Iwould havedismissed hisrecoursehaving regard tothe totality of thecircumstances andthefact thathehadbeenassessed both by theDirector of theDepartmentandtherespondentas "good" whilst theevaluationoftheinterestedpartiesbytheDirectorrang­ es from «almost very good» to«excellent» and by respondent from "very good" to "very very good". The interested parties have also beenevaluated asexcellent totheirwork bythe Direc­ tor. 2101 Hadjitsangaris J. Yiallourides v. Republic

(1988)I will now proceed todeal with thesecond part of recourse No. 69/85 and all otherrecourses together.Thepoints of Law raisedwhicharecommontoallrecoursesarethefollowing: 1.TheDepartmental Committeedidnotgivereasonsforthe selection of the 189 candidateswhich itrecommended as 5 themostsuitable. 2.Therespondent,althoughithadalready decidedtosubmit thecandidatestowrittenexaminations, laterchangeditsde­ cisionwithoutgivingreasons. 3.Therecordingby therespondentof theimpressionsduring theinterviews was notcontemporaneous. 10 4.TheHeadof theDepartmentevaluated theperformanceof casual employees at theirwork but failed todo thesame abouttheapplicants,whowerepublic officers. 5.Undue weightwas placedtotheperformanceof thecandidatesduringtheinterviews. 15 6.OutsiderswereprefeiTTedfor appointmenttotheapplicants, whowerepublicofficers, withoutspecialreasons. 7. Lastly, counsel for applicant in case No. 680/84, argued thatcertainof theinterestedpartiesdonotpossessthequali- 20 fications prescribedby theschemeof service. Iwilldealwiththelastgroundfirst.Theinterestedpartieswho allegedly donotpossessthequalificationsrequiredareNos. 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,20, 21,23,24,25 and27. Counsel arguedthat the diplomas possessed by these candidates are equivalent to ^5 L.C.C. Higher in accordance with notes

(6)and

(7)of the scheme of service and they should have therefore passed the GovernmentQualifying Examinations(Β.

(1)(β)of theschemeof service)inordertobeeligibleforappointment 2102 3 C.L.R. Yiallourides v. Republic Hadjitsangaris J. Ihave considered thequalifications of theseparties very care­ fully butIcannotacceptthattheDiploma of eitherAthensUniver­ sity or Aristotelion University of Salonica in Economics,which are possessed by-interested parties Nos. 15, 16, 18, 19 and 27 5 corresponds to note,

(7)of the scheme of service, which is aDi­ ploma in Higher Commercial Studies.Those Diplomas are Uni­ versity Diplomas and were rightly treated as so by the respon­ dent. These interested parties are therefore qualified under provision B(l)(

1. a)of the scheme of service and did not have to ΙΑ pass theGovernmentQualifying Examinations.Inany event,in­ terested parties Nos. 19and27 have alsopassed the Government , Qualifying Examinations.Thesame applies tointerested parties Nos. 21 and 25 who possess a Diploma of Pantios Higher Schoolof Political ScienceinPublic Administration as well asin­ terested party No.24, who possesses a diploma of the Highest Industrial School of Salonica in Economics. They were also rightly treated as being qualified under,B.(l)(
2. a)of the scheme of service anddid nothave topass thesaid examination. . 20 25 30 35 Interested parties Nos. 14,20 and 23, however, possess a diT plomaof the Athens Highest Schoolof Commercial andEconom­ ic Studies, which is enumeratedundernote

(6)of the scheme of service as being equivalent to L.C.C. Higher in Accounting. These parties, as a result, should have passed theGovernment Qualifying examinations inorderto beeligiblefor appointment, having regard to provision Β.

(1)(β) of the scheme of service. Sincenothingappears in theirfilestothiseffect Ifind thatthere­ spondent failed toconductadueinquiry intothematterandas a result the recourses against these interested parties succeed and theirappointment must beannulled. I will now deal with the other grounds of the recourses, against theremaininginterestedparties. With regard tothefirst ground, it is clearfromthecontentsof the report of theDepartmentalCommitteethatits selection was based on the totality of the material before it, which were the qualifications of thecandidates,thepersonalandconfidential files 2103 Hadjitsangaris J. Yiallourides v. Republic

(1988)ofthoseofthemwhowerepublicofficers, andtheirperformance attheinterviewsbeforeit.Thisgroundthereforefails. Astothesecondgroundraised,ithasbeenstatedinanumber ofcasesthatthePublicServiceCommissionisfreetoregulateits own proceedings (see Georghiades & Another v. Republic 5

(1966)3 C.L.R. 827; Lazarou v. Republic

(1968)3 C.L.R. 129).Ifindnothing wrongorirregularinthedecision oftherespondent to change its previous decision and as a result this groundalsofails. Thenextpointraisedisthenon-contemporaneousrecordingof 10 the results of the interviews bytherespondent. The interviews took placeondifferent datesbetween the4th and 13thOctober 1983, whilst the assessment by the respondent of the performanceofthecandidatesduringsuchinterviewswasrecordedat itsmeetingofthe 16thNovember, 1983,thatisaboutfourto five 15 weekslater.IntheFullBench caseofThePublicService Commissionv.MarinaPotoudesandOthers

(1987)3C.L.R. 1591 thefactsofwhich aresimilartothoseinthepresentcases,itwas found thatthetimeof39-79dayswhichhadelapsedbetweenthe interviews and therecording of theirresults wasnot such asto 20 annul the decisions concerned on that ground. Following the abovecaseIwilldismissthisgroundaswell. I come now to ground 4, bywhich the applicants complain that theHead of theDepartment failed toevaluate their performanceatworkwhilsthedidsointhecaseofcertainoftheinter- «s ested parties who are casual employees. It isobviousfromthe contentsofappendix 39,whichcontainstheviewsoftheHeadof theDepartmentabouteachoneofthecandidatesinterviewed,that heevaluatedtheperformance atworkofthoseofficers wnowere working intheDepartment, whichdoesnotincludeonlycertain ^0 of theinterestedparties,butalsocertainoftheapplicants(applicantsincasesNos.677/85,45/85 andapplicantPolonosincase No.39/85). With regard to the other applicants, who were clerks 2nd 2104 . 3C.L.R. Yiallourides v.Republic Hadjitsangaris J. Grade,Ifindthatthecoursefollowed bytheHeadoftheDepartmentnottoevaluatetheirperformance atworkwasareasonable oneinthecircumstancessincetheywereperformingdifferent duties.Asaresultthisgroundisalsodismissed. 5 Astotheweightwhichwasplacedattheinterviews,although therespondent preferred for appointment those who performed better at theinterviews before it this wasnottheonly criterion takenintoconsideration,butitwasoverandabovethequalificationsoftheapplicantsandtheperformance atworkofthoseserv10 ing within theDepartment.BearinginmindthatthepostofAssistant Assessor 2nd Grade is a First Entry post, the weight attached totheinterviews wasnot an undueonein thecircumstances {set Nicolaidou'v. The Public ServiceCommission

(1985)3C.L.R.2492atp.2500andalsotheFull Benchcaseof ,^ ThePublicServiceCommission v.MarinaPotoudesandOthers (supra)). Whatremainstobeconsideredisthelastpointconcerningthe appointmentofoutsidersinsteadoftheapplicantswhowerepublic officers. 20 -c 35 , Theparamountdutyoftherespondentistoselectthebestcandidatesforappointment.AsIsaidearlierthemajority oftheapplicantswereclerks2ndGradeinvariousDepartmentsandtheirduties have nothing to do with those of the post under consideration. ApplicantsYiallourides,PolonosandNicolaidou, althoughtheywereworkingintheDepartment,werecasualemployeesandthisdoes notput themin anadvantageous position visavisotheroutsidersastheyarealsoconsideredassuch (Nicolaidouv.Republic(supra)atp.2499).Asittranspiresfromthe variousminutesof therespondent andespecially appendices40 and47,therespondentselectedthoseofthequalified candidates whoperformed betterattheinterviewsbefore it,takingalsointo consideration theevaluationoftheirperformance bytheDirector. Allinterested parties have been assessed bytherespondents as "very good" with theexception of interested party No.21who has been assessed as "very very good". The assessment of the . 2105 Hadjitsangaris J. Yiallouridesv.Republic

(1988)Directoraboutthesamepartiesrangesbetween "verygood"and "excellent" with the exemption of interested parties 20 and22 whohavebeenassessedas"almostverygood".Allapplicantson theotherhandhavebeenassessed bytherespondentas "almost very good" with the exemption of applicant in case No.69/85 5 whohasbeenassessed as"good"bothbytherespondentandthe Director.TheassessmentoftheapplicantsbytheDirectorranges from"good"to"veryverygood". Taking intoconsideration all the material before me,which wasalsobeforetherespondent,Ifindthatthesubjudicedecision JQ wasreasonablyopentotherespondent andtheapplicants,orany ofthem,failed toestablish strikingsuperiorityovertheseinterestedparties. Intheresulttheserecoursessucceedpartly,asagainstinterestedpartiesA.Anastassiou, Chr.MichaelidesandA.Tsolakis,and aredismissed asagainst theremaining interested parties.Inthe circumstancesIhavedecidednottomakeanyorderastocosts. Subjudicedecision partlyannulled. Noorderasto costs. APPENDIX 1.CharalambosGavriel. 2.AgathiGeorghiadou-Theofilou. 3.AnastasiosConstantinou. 4.GregorisPetrou. 5.NicosProkopiou. 6.Efpraxia Roussou. 7.MariaTsolaki. 8.MariaGregoriadou. 9.EleniDamaskinou. 2106 ^ on 25 30 3 C.L.R. . 5 IQ 15 Yiallourides v..Republic 10.Pantelitsa Chimona. ll.EgliChristoudi. 12. Niki Chrysantou. · 13.Angelos Antoniou. 14.Anastasia Anastassiou. 15.Charalambos Gavrielides.. 16.YiangosYiangou. 17.Elefteria Yiassemidou. 18.Monalita Evripidou. 19.Stavroulla Theophanous. 20.Chrysis Michaelides. 21. Sophia Pelava. 22. Sotiris Pierides. 23. AndreasTsolakis. 24.VeraCharalambous-Chlorakiori. 25. Vyron HadjiGeorghiou. 26.Panikos HadjiYiannis. 27.Theodotos Christodoulou. 2107 Hadjitsangaris J.