(1988)1988November18 [A. LOEOU. P..MALACHTOS,DEMETRIADES,SAVVIDES,STYLIANIDES, PIKIS & KOURRIS,JJJ ANDREAS SEKKIDES, Appellant-Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo. 728). PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Circular491179,Reg. 9—Breachof(Alterationsbycounter-signingofficerwithoutpriorconsultationwiththereportingofficer}—Illegalityinthebroadsense,asitis-aviolationoftherulesofprocedure—itsimpactonthevalidityofthefinalact ofpromotion—Dependsonwhetherithasmateriallyaffectedsuchpromo- 5 tion—(Republic v.Argyrides
(1987)3CLJi. 1092 explained). ConstitutionalLaw—Equality—Constitution,Art.28—Promotionsofpublic officers—Confidentialreports—Circular491(79,Reg.9—Breachof—The decisioninRepublic v.Argyrides
(1987)3CZ/t. 1092 cannotbeextricatedfromthefactsofthatcase. 10 Theconfidential reports for theappellant for theyears 1979,1980, 1982,and 1983werecompiled bytheHeadof theFisheriesDepartment himself,Mr.Demetropoulos.Theapplicant'sratingswere: Year Ratings 1979 1980 1982 1983 "VeryGood" (1-7-3) "VeryGood"(5-5-0) "VeryGood n (5-7-0) "VeryGood"(4-8-0) 2136 15 3 CX.R. Sekkides v. Republic Thereportingofficer for 1981and 1984rated theapplicantas "Very Good"and"Excellent"respectively (6-6-0for 1981and8-4 -0for 1984),butinbothcases,Mr.Demetropoulos,whoactedascountersigning Officerdowngradedtheappellantasfollows: 5 Year1981 Year1984 from6-6-0to5-7-0. from "Excellent'(8-4-0)to"VeryGood"(5-7-0). OntheotherhandMr.Demetropoulos,inhiscapacityascountersigning officer, reducedthereportsontheinterestedpartyaswell,inthefollowing manner. 10 15 1979from "Excellent"(9-0-0) to"VeryGood"(6-5-0) 1980from "Excellent"(9-0-0) to"VeryGood"(5-5-0) 1981 from "Excellent"(10-0-0)to"VeryGood"(6-6-0) 1982from "Excellent"(10-0-0)to"VeryGood"(6-6-0) 1983 from "Excellent"(11-0-0)to"VeryGood"(6-6-0) 1984from"Excellent"(10-0-0)to'VeryGood" (6-6-0) Theissuethatarosefordeterminationinthisappealistheimpactonthe subjudicedecisionofthefactthatthereportfor 1984wasalteredinamanner constituting abreach of Reg.9of Circular 491/1979concerning the preparationoftheconfidentialreports. 20 Held,allowingtheappealandannullingthesubjudicedecision:
(1)Circular491/79laysdownrulesofprocedurethatmustbefollowed. Failuretofollowthemrenderaconfidential reportirregular.Suchirregularityamountstoanillegalityinthebroadsenseoftheterm,becauseitisa violationofaprocedurallegalprovision.* 25
(2)However,beingaviolationofprocedure,theimpactonthevalidity ofthefinaldecisionofpromotion,dependsonwhethersuchdecisionwas materiallyaffected thereby. 1
(3)Thequestionofequalityreferred toinArgyrides'casesupra,cannot beextricatedfromthefactsofthatcase. 30
(4)Withoutdoubtonemusttreatverycautiouslywhenconsideringsuch reportsinorder.tcavoideventheslightestpossibilityofabusebythoseentrustedwith thedutyof compilingconfidential reports.Onemustalways ThisishowArgyrides"casesuprashouldbeunderstood. 2137 Sekkides v. Republic
(1988)lookfirstatthecircumstancesofthecaseinhandinordertoascertainthe extentof theirregularityandtheeffect suchreporthadonthe subjudicede cision.
(5)Inthiscasethelikelihoodthatthealterationsmayhavematerially af fectedthepromotioncannotbeexcluded. 5 Appealallowed. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Republicv.Argyrides
(1987)3C.L.R.1092; Christouv. TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R. 437; Livadasv. TheRepublic
(1985)3 CX.R.506; Themistocleous v.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 2652; Lofitis v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1318; Christoforou v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 2413; ^ Georghiades v.TheRepublic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 26; Ghristofidesv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C. L.R. 1127; Alvanis v.CYTA
(1985)3C.L.R.2695; Hjilossifv. CYTA
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1353; KarpasiUsv. TheRepublic
(1986)3CL.R. 1617; 20 Stylianidesv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 1123; Papatryfonosv.TheRepublic(\9&Ί) 1CL.R. 1882; Zyngas v.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.838; leridesv. TheRepublic
(1976)3 CL.R.9andonappeal
(1980)3 CL.R.
- 2138 2 5 3 CL.R. Sekkidesv.Republic Appeal. Appeal against the judgmentof a Judgeof the Supreme Court of Cyprus(LorisJ.) givenonthe 15thMay,, 1987 (RevisionalJu risdiction Case No. 862/85)* whereby appellant's Recourse against the promotionof the interestedparty to the postofSenior FisheriesAssistantwasdismissed. M.Christofides, for the appellant. Μ *t • · . . . - v* . . . : L. Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic, for the respondent. - ,, y, •' ur . • ' a "-;•'•<ν .P · ' • . v vu ^· . . ^· · - . " - A.LOIZOU P. readthefollowingjudgmentof the Court.This is anappealfrom the judgment of ajudgeof thisCourtinthe ex erciseof the originaljurisdiction of the Courtdismissing the re coursefiledagainst·the promotionof theinterested,party tothe postof Seniorfisheries Assistantin the DepartmentofFisheries, MinistryofAgricultureand NaturalResources.. The groundsuponwhichthisappealisfiledare that: 1
- Thetrialcourtwronglydecidedthat the interestedpartywas* rightly and legallypreferred totheapplicantandthatis was reasonably open totherespondentCommission todecide so.. ; ' -· 2.(A)The trialCourtwrongly J ' (a) acceptedthatthe applicantfailed to establishanysu periority and/or.strilring superiority,over theinterested party; ·;, ., (b) acceptedthatthe interestedpartyis "bettermerited" (c) evaluated the recommendationsof the Director,Fish eriesDepartment. , * (Reported in
(1987)3 CJLM. 744). - • 2139 ; A. Loizou P. Sekkides ν.Republic
(1988)(Β)Theappellantallegesthatthematerialof thefilesespe ciallyastoqualifications andmeritonthebasisof theconfi dentialreportsandhisqualifications establish thesuperiori ty and/or striking superiority of the applicant over the interestedparty. 3.ThetrialCourtwronglyconsideredthatthesubjudicedeci sion was duly reasoned. Inthe courseof thepresentproceedings leavewas givento the appellant tofile an additional ground of appeal this being as to whether there was in fact compliance with therequirements of 10 paragraph 9 of Circular No. 491 of the26th March 1979 by the officer whocountersigned theconfidential reportof theappellantapplicantandof theinterestedparty andinparticularthereportfor theyear 1984. Inrelation tothis ground itwas contendedby the appellant thattheconfidential reportfor theyear 1984 which was ^g taken into consideration by the respondent Commission when reaching thesubjudice decision hadbeen altered by the counter signingofficer to thedetrimentof theappellant,contrary tothe provisions of paragraph 9 of theCirculari.e.without having dis cussed thematterpriortosuchalterationswith thereportingofti- ™ cer and without giving any reasons for such alterations andhis ownevaluation intheappropriatecolumnof observations. It was contendedthaton theauthority of thedecision of the Full Bench of this Courtin thecase of Republic v.Argyrides
(1987)3C.L.R. 1092 this was amaterial irregularity, anydevia- ~ς tion by thecountersigning officerfromtheexpressprovisions of theCircularbeing tantamounttoanillegality. Counselfor therespondentontheother-handadmittedthat the aforesaid confidential report had been altered without theprovi sions of paragraph 9 of the Circular having been followed but submitted thatfailure toobserve such provisions does not auto matically lead to annulmentof the sub-judice decision as there first hastobeamaterialirregularity andwhetherthereis such,it primarily depends ontheparticularcircumstances of thecase.It 2140 5 3 C.L.R. 5 10 25 2β 25 · Sekkides v. Republic A.LoizouP. was submitted thatany deviation from theprovisions of para.9 of the Circular is notby itself areason for annulmentbut such mustbeamaterialirregularity; itis materialif inthecircumstances of thecase theCourtfindsthattherespondentCommission was wrongly influenced. Itwas contendedthatonemustalwayslook atthecircumstances todecidewhether theirregularity ismaterial or not,otherwise if a tooabsolute interpretation is given tothe caseofArgyrides (supra)onewould beleadtounfair results. Looking atthecaselaw onthe matterpriortoArgyrides it was held by theFull Bench inChristou v.Republic
(1980)3C.L.R. 437 atp:438: ' "Itis notdisputed thatthe 1969 annualconfidential report, • inrelationtothe appellantwas signedby Chief-InspectorMakris,instead of by theDirectorof theDepartment,asReporting ' officer, incontraventionof theaforementioned circulardated January 5, 1970; and this amounts undoubtedly toan irregu larity. But,inthecircumstances itcannotbetreatedas amate rialirregularity theoccurrenceof which canberegarded as vi tiatingthe relevant administrative process leading up tothe promotionof theinterested party anditis,indeed,wellestab lished thatacomplainedof irregularity hastobeof a material natureinrelation totheparticular matterconcernedbefore it can be relied onas ground for annulmentof therelevant administrative·action (see,interalia, inthisrespect, HadjiLouca v. TheRepublic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 570, 576, and,on Appeal
(1971)3 C.L.R. 96, 103 andSavoulla andothersv. The Re public,
(1973)3C.L.R. 706, 713)." • r ,. i.- ·.·· *. , • Similarly inLivadas v. Republic
(1985)3 CL.R. 506 it was heldatp. 510: 30 "Thelegislativeprovisions applicable toconfidential reports for public officers are section 45 of thePublic Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67)and,in relation,particularly, to seconded officers, section 3of theStateOfficers (Temporary Regulating Provisions) Law, 1975 (Law'54/75).• 2141 A.LoizouP. Sekkidesv. Republic
(1988)Inthelightof thesaidlegislativeprovisionsIdonotthink that Mr.Constantinou wasexcluded from making theconfidentialreportsinrelationtothetwointerestedpartiesfor 1976. Even,if, however,Ihadfoundthatthemakingofsuchreports by Mr. Constantinou was anirregularity I would have held 5 that itwasnotof material nature vitiatingthepromotionsof theinterestedparties.Useful reference,inthisrespect,maybe made to the case of Christou v. The Republic
(1980)3 CL.R. 437,448." LivadaswascitedwithsupportinThemistocleousv.Republic JQ
(1985)3C.L.R.2652wherethefollowing wasstatedatp.2666: "Under Order 9of theRegulatory Orderson Confidential Reports if the Countersigning Officer disagrees as toanyof thegradingsoftheReportingOfficer hediscussesthesubject with himandif thedisagreement continuestoexist, hegives 15 hisownevaluation inredinkandinitialssamegivingreasons for hisown evaluation in thecolumn of observations.There appearstohavebeenadifference ofopinion between theReportingOfficer andtheCountersigningOfficer whichdoesnot seemtohavebeenresolvedandasaresultchangesinTedink 2n wereeffected intheConfidential Reportoftheapplicant.The omissionscomplained of arethattheCountersigning Officer did not discuss with the Reporting Officer his difference of opinion.Ontheotherhandthereisnothingtosuggestthatthe DirectorofPharmaceutical ServicesandtheDirectorofMedical Serviceswerenotawareofthecorrectsituation inthecircumstances.Ishalltreatthisomissionasanirregularitywhich inthecircumstancesof thiscaseisnotmaterialandcouldnot have affected adversely theoutcomeof theact in respectof whichithasoccurred,notitslegality.Thereisampleauthority 30 totheeffect thatanirregularity whichisnotofamaterialnaturedoesnotvitiatetheadministrativeactordecisioninwhich itoccurs." ThecaseofLofitisv.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1318wasdecidedonthesamelineswherethefollowing wassaidatp. 1330: 35 ' 2142 -3 C.L.R. Sekkides v. Republic A:LoizouP. "There is tomy mind,nomaterial irregularity whatsoever regarding these reports nor does the fact that any correction was madein blue andnotin red ink vitiate thereport.Failure tocomply with therequirementof Regulation 9 tomakecor rections in red ink does not vitiate in any way thereport. I must,however, say thatin any event it is notclear thatthere has been any change in the ratings of this applicant by the ιCountersigningOfficer. Inanyevent therehasbeennomateri al irregularity and on the authorities only an irregularity of a •material naturecould affect the validity of an administrative act," And also in the case of Christoforou v. Republic
(1986)3 CL.R. 2413 indealing with changes brought about by the coun tersigning officer without priorexchange of views theCourt had to say thefollowing atp.*2423: . "TheCommission observed further thatthesechanges were madeby thecountersigning officer without previous consulta tion·with thereporting officer contrary to the Regulatory Or ders. Forthatreason 'itdecided totake intoconsiderationonly the assessment of the reporting officer'. Anything that might - be wrong was clearly put right both by the Director,thede partmental Board andtherespondentCommission." A similarview also appears inOdentContentieuxAdministrat1/(1976-1981)p. 1831. "An administrative act is thus not regular if it was not isr.sued in due form andin compliancewith thelegalprocedure. Butfrom this statementof theprincipleit does not necessarily follow that all the acts which were not issued in accordance with theseconditionsmust have, as aresult of thisfact alone, such anirregularity which would lead toannulmentfor excess of power. Thecase law, in its endeavour toresist, for the ben efit of the good'functioning of the public service, the easy temptations of arestricted formalism, has always considered thatapersonundertheadministrationis notjustified tocall for 2143 A. LoizouP. Sekkides v. Republic
(1988)support for aconclusion of excessof power, directed against anadministrative decision,irregularities informorprocedure which in theparticular circumstances of thecase couldnot have hadany influence onthedecision of the administration; for instancethere is noirregularity inrejecting withoutconsul- 5 tationwhichis normallyobligatory ademandmanifestly unac ceptable (24June 1964,Genouille,p.457 etacontrarioS. 19 March 1971,Jacquemin, p.234) ortoprohibita commercial project subject to authorisation, without prior consultation whenno applicationfor alicencehasbeenmade (14February ,•. 1968, Ministre de Γ Economie et des Finances c/ste 'C.H.A.R.M.' p. 111)." andalsoatp. 1832 "Administrative caselaw isineffect morerelatedtothecon sequences of aformality andto thereasons whichjustify its 15 existence, rather than to the formality itself; it investigates whetherthelack of formality ortheerrorscommittedinits ob servance have ornotby nature decisivelyinfluenced the deci siontaken.Lackof formality liabletohaveinfluenced the out comeof suchadecision taintssuch adecision withexce.ssof ~^ power (9April 1948,Leroux, p. 153).Tothecontrary.alack of formality whichis certainnottohave hadanyinfluenceon theoutcomeof adecision takendoes notby nature lead to the annulmentof suchdecision forexcessof power (4July 1952, Decharme,p. 362; 29 Mars 1957, Federationnationale des 2 ^ syndicats d'utilisateurs ettransformateurs delait,p.222)." Ontheotherhandadifferent viewwas heldinGeorghiades v. Republic
(1982)3CL.R.26ontheeffect of failure by thecoun tersigning officer tomakehis observations andof theuseofvery strict grading criteria upon thedirections of the Ministry con- ^0 cernedingrading theapplicant.Itwas concludedatp.28 that: "Section45of thelaw andtherelevantgeneralordersregu latethematterof confidential reportsandanunfettereddiscre tionisgiven:thereby toboththereportingandcountersigning 2144 3 C.L.R. 5 lft 15 2 0 ^ ·*" 35 . Sekkides v. Republic A. Loizou.P. officers. It is a discretionary power vested by legislation in those two administrative organs and its exercise cannotbe as' sumed orregulated except with regard tolegality by any hier archically superior organ unless thereexistsexpress provision tothateffect (SeeAraouzos & Others v. TheRepublic
(1968).- 3CL.R.p.287). Consequently, directives and instructions as toassessments of theperformance of officers being more strict are-extraneous matterswhich could notandought notto have beenitaken intoconsideration by theofficers entrusted with the task.of their preparation under section 45 of theLaw and the relevant general orders. By taking them, therefore, intocon. sideration and allowing themselves tobe influenced thereby, . thereporting officer has exercised his discretion in a defective manner and in my view he has acted contrary to Law and in abuse of his powers which;renders theconfidential report for theyear 1978 invalid". Simirarly in Christofides v. The Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1127 where thecountersigning officer failed togivehis own rea sons for reducing thegrading of theapplicant,thefollowing was stated atp. 1135: "The actof thecountersijgning officer was contrary topara graph 9 of the Regulations governing confidential reports. (See Appendix 21). Countersigning officers have to conform strictly with theprovisions of theregulations concerning confidential reports especially when any act of theirs might affect adversely theofficer concerned. Theaforesaid, i.e. failure toconform with theprovisions of paragraph 9 of the Regulations and thelack of due reasoning, invalidate theintendedchange in theconfidential reportfor the applicantfor 1980. Therespondent Commission in thepresent case in assessingthemeritof theapplicanttookintoconsidera,tionthat the applicant was 'Very Good"in 1980 whereas the interested parties were marked ΈχΰβΙΙεηι', and this appears what weighed against the applicant and influenced theCommission in taking thesubjudice decision. TheCommission in 2145 A.LoizouP. Sekkidesv.Republic
(1988)thecircumstanceslabouredunderamaterialmisconceptionof fact, theeffect ofwhichistonullify itsdecision -(SeePublic ServiceCommission v.Myrianthi Papaonissiforou
(1984)3 C.L.R. 370)." InAlvanis v. CYTA
(1985)3C.L.R. 2695 it was held at p. 5 2701-2702: "The inescapable conclusion is-that thereports werepreparedoutsidetheframework oftheRegulationsandthequestion ariseswhetheranysignificancecanbeattachedtothem.It is settled that formalities prescribed by the law must beob- 10 servedasacondition of thevalidityof anadministrative act. Unlesstheformality ignored isofaninessentialcharacterand, as such, inconsequential for the decision taken, breach ofa formality laiddownbylawtaintsthedecisionwithinvalidity. Asimilarresultmustfollow whereactionistakenoutsidethe 15 framework of aregulatory decision of therule-making body. Thepreparation andcontentofconfidentialreportswasanessentialformality forthepromotionofpersonneloftheAuthority.As such it hadtoconform totheconditions laiddownin thelaw;inthiscasetheexerciseof therule-making powerof -n theAuthority astoitscontent andpersonswhowouldbeentrustedwiththetaskofreportingupontheircolleaguesorsubordinates. The preparation of reports outside the context of suchadecisionwasarbitraryandofno effect." AlsoinHjilossifv. CYTA
(1986)3C.L.R. 1353it wasstated atpp. 1358-1359. 25 "Servicereportsnotpreparedinconformity withRegulation 23
(4)cannotvalidlybeusedintheprocessof selectingacandidateforpromotion.Departurefrom theprovisionsofRegulation 23
(4)isnotanimmaterial irregularity; itisof material ™ natureanddoeseffect thevalidity oftheservicereports.Any decision taken on the basis of an invalid service report isin lawdefective andcannotsurvivethejudicialcontroloftheadministrativeCourt. 2146 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 2 0 30 35 . Sekkidesxν:, Republic A. Loizou P.. . Regulation23
(4)laysdown.thattthecontentsandthe man-> nerof thepreparationoftheserviceireportsand'thenomination-; of thereportingofficers aredecidedby theBoard.TheBoard! didnottakeanydecisiomonthematter.Theservicereportsfox.* theapplicantand'theinterestedparty were probably prepared; by theirsuperioruvthe:service'whorhowever, were notnomir natedeitherby nameorby postorotherwise by theBoard,1as providedin Regulation23
(4)." Jn.Karpasitis v.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1617, PikisJ.'.had* this.tO'say onthefailure of theCountersigning Officer tohaveta prior consultation· with the reporting officer before effecting changesiin thereportsof theparties andwithout giving,any. rea sonsforhis assessment,,atpp. 1623 -1624: "Formalitiesprescribed by statuteoradministrative regulation mustas arulebeobserved as aconditionfor the,validity of theact.Ifthegenesis of theactisregulatedby4aworbind ing administrative regulations, observance qf'the·formalities prescribed therein is a condition for their emergence in the realm of validadministrative acts.Unlesstheformality is by its natureof aninconsequential character,ordinarily thecase with meretechnicalities,it mustbe treatedas an·essential,re quisite for thevalidation of theact.Any effort onthepartof theCourttoignore thedirectives of thelaw, formalities pre scribed by law or administrative regulations pertinenttothe genesisofadrninistrativeaction,would constitutea usurpation of theadministrativeprocess. Itispresumedthatevery formal ity prescribed by law is essential for thevalidation of theact. Only in the-clearest of cases could theCourtconclude other' ^wise.Counselfor theRepublicsubmitted thattheOmissionof the Auditor-General to consult the reporting officer before making changes to the confidential reports of theapplicant amountedtonomorethan breachof an inessential formality thatleft unaffected theassessment of thecountersigning offi cer. Thedecision of A. Loizou,J. InThemistocleous^ v. Re· public
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2652, lends support to this submis sion,thoughitmustbe stressed thatthelearnedJudgedidnot 2147 A. Loizou P. Sekkides v. Republic
(1988)purport tolay down ageneral proposition with regard tothe effects of breach of theprovisions ofr.9confining hisdecisiontothecircumstancesofthatcase." TheFullBenchofthisCourtinRepublicv.Argyrides(supra) wheretheCountersigning Officer, insteadofcomplyingwiththe 5 procedure setoutinregulation9,proceeded tomakehisownassessments on certain items, somein ordinary ink, and somein red, withoutpreviously havingdiscussed thematterwiththereporting officer and without giving reasons for his own assessmentintheappropriatecolumn,heldthat: JQ "Asalready explained earlierin thisjudgment, theregulationsconcerningthepreparationofconfidentialreportswhich havebeenembodiedinCircular491/79andwhichreplacedthe General Orders which werein force prior to 1979in thisrespect,weremadebytheCouncilofMinistersintheexerciseof 15 thepowersvestedinitundertheConstitution andLaw33/67. Such regulations are not subsidiary legislation in the strict sensebuthavetobestrictlycomplied with.Thedeviation by thecountersigningofficerfromtheexpressprovisionsofsuch regulationsistantamounttoanillegality.Moreover,thesubju- 2n dicedecision shouldbeannulledasviolatingArticle28ofthe Constitution.Everypublicofficer isentitledtoexpectthatthe procedureinthepreparationofconfidential reportscontemplatedbythe Regulations approved bytheCouncil of Ministers shouldbestrictlyadheredtoinallcaseswithoutanydifferenti- ^5 ation.AnyapplicationoftheRegulationsinadifferent manner ineachparticularcaseviolatestheprinciplethatapersonisentitled toequaltreatment whichissafeguarded underArticle28 of the Constitution. Wehave,therefore, reached theconclusion that the subjudice decision should be annulled on this 30 groundaswell." Inthe lightof thedecision inArgyrides itwasheldin Stylianidesv.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R.1123wherethechanges affectedwereinitialledinblueinkanddidnotappeartohavebeendiscussedorbroughttotheknowledgeofthereportingofficer, that: 35 2148 3 CL.R. 5 Sekkides v. Republic A. Loizou P. "I feel bound to"conclude that the sub judice decision shouldbeannulledonthegroundthattherehasbeenadevia-. tionbythecountersigningofficer from theexpressprovisions ofsuchregulationswhichistantamounttoanillegalityandthat moreoverthesubjudicedecisionshouldbeannulledasviolatingArticle28oftheConstitution." On the other hand in the case of Papatryfonosv.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R. 1882where thecountersigning officer, namely Mr.Eliades,thethenDirector-General of theMinistryofCom10• merceandIndustry,omitted tofillthecolumnreserved for the countersigning officer which remained blank and instead made certaincommentsandsignedpartVIofthereportreservedforthe HeadoftheDepartment,itwasconsideredthatthis ·' "InvevitablyresultedinbreachofRegulation9ofthecircularlayingdownaninflexible proceduretobefollowed inevery case where thecountersigning officer disagrees with theassessmentmadebythereportingofficer concerningthevalueof theservicesofthepersonreportedupon." ' 15 * * ' ' * * • " . . . Furthermoreitwasfeltthereinthat· ; 20 25 30 * "Inthelightofourcaselaw thereporthadbeenimproperly prepared and on that account ought to have been ignored,at leastthatpartofitthatdisclosedtheviewsofthecountersigningofficer. Intheabsenceofanyindication tothatendinthe -'minutesoftheDepartmental Committee andlaterinthoseof thePublicServiceCommission,IcannotpresumethattheyignoredthecommentsofMr.Eliades,therefore, thereportwas taintedwithillegalityandassuchoughttohavebeenignored." But inresolving theimplications stemming from taking into accounttheconfidential reportoftheapplicantfortheyear1979, itwasfoundthat: "Onaconsiderationofthematerialbeforemetheinevitable answeristhatitwasimmaterialinviewoftheoveralleffect of 2149 A.LoizouP. Sekkidesv.Republic
(1988)therecordoftheapplicantandthatoftheinterestedparty.The Public Service Commission founded itsdecision on aconsideration of the servicerecordof thecandidates for thepost. Assuming that thereport for the year 1979was not fraught withillegality and therating oftheapplicant wasnotdimin- 5 ishedbytheremarksoftheDirector-General,thepicturewith regard to the applicant as compared to the interested party wouldremainunaffected. Theapplicant wasoverwhelmingly betterin termsof meritandenjoyed seniorityoverherinthe serviceaswell.Acomparisonoftheassessmentoftheservic- 1Q esof theapplicantfor theyearsfollowing herappointmentto thepositionimmediatelyprecedingthattowhichshewasseekingpromotionwiththecorrespondingreportsoftheinterested party,leavesnodoubtthattheinterestedpartyperformed con- — siderably betterthanheratwork.Itisclearfrom thedecision ** of therespondentsthattheyattached,astheywereentitledto, particularimportancetorecentreportsontheparties,afactthat madetheirdecisiontopromotetheinterestedpartyinevitable. The decision in Argyrides (supra) does not compel the Courtto setasideevery decisionof thePublicServiceCom- 20 missionwhereaconfidential reportwasimproperlyprepared independentlyoftheimpactofthatimproprietyonthefinaldecision.SotoholdwouldleadtheCourrtoannullingeverydecisionoftheappointingbodyirrespectiveoftheremotenessin pointoftime,ofanirregularitythatoccurredinthepreparation 25 ofaconfidentialreport.Thatisnotthespiritortheeffectofthe decisioninArgyrides. Themisconceptionofthefactsrelevant totheperformance oftheapplicantintheyear 1979wasinthe eventaninconsequential factor forthedecisionofthe respondents and on that account the misconception of therelevant 30 factsonthepartoftheP.S.C.wasimmaterial." Relevant is also the case of Zyngas v. Republic
(1988)3 CL.R. 838whereitwasheldatp.843that:"Thereisnorequirement for suchreasonstobegivenexceptonlyintheeventoftherebeingadisagreementtothatef- 35 2150 3C.L.R. Sekkidesv.Republic A.LoizouP. feetbetweenthecountersigningandthereportingofficers, but in anycasein thisinstance thecountersigning andreporting officer areoneandthesameperson." Reference mustalsobemadetothe"caseofCharalambosIe5 ridesv.TheRepublic
(1976)3C.UR.^'affirmed on appealby the Full Bench, thejudgment reported under the same title in
(1980)3CL.R. 165iwherethequestionofirregularitiesof form andtheireffect wasconsideredandheldthatonlyamaterialirregularitycantlead totheannulmentoftherelevantadministrative 1Q process.(SeealsoStassinopoulos,OntheLawofAdministrative Acts-1951p.p.229-230). Inthelightoftheaboveauthoritiesitmustbeconcluded that the 1979Circularlaysdownrulesofprocedurewhich'mustgen-. erallybefollowed whenpreparingconfidentialreports.Failureto 15 observesuchrulesinevitablyrendersanyreportthuscompiledirregular,butatthesametimewefeel thattoholdthatsuchirregUT larityshouldatalltimesbeconsideredasleadingtotheannulment ofanydecisiontaken,irrespectiveofwhetheritdidmaterially affect suchdecision,wouldbegoingtoofar.Nodoubtsuchirregu2Q larityamountstoahillegalityinthebroadsenseoftheterm,that isofbeingaviolationof aprocedurallegalprovision andthisis howweunderstandArgyridescase(supra).Butbeingaviolation ofprocedureithastobeshownthatitmateriallyaffected thedecision reached. As regards the conclusion reached in Argyrides 25 case(supra)respecting Article28
(1)weareof theview that it - cannot_beextricatedfromthefactsofthatcase. , Withoutdoubtonemusttreadverycautiouslywhenconsideringsuchreportsinorderto:avoid eventheslightestpossibilityof abusebythoseentrusted withthedutyofcompiling confidential reports.Webelievethatonemustalwayslookfirstatthecircumstancesofthecaseinhandinordertoascertain theextentofthe irregularity andtheeffect suchreporthadonthesubjudicedecision. 2151 A.LoizouP. Sekkidesv.Republic
(1988)Inthepresentinstancethefollowingpictureispresentedbythe confidential reportsoftheappellant Asitappearsfrom theconfidentialreportfortheyear 1984the appellanthadbeenratedbythereportingofficer as"Excellent" (84-0) whereasafter thealterationshebecame "VeryGood"(5-70), items "dedication to duty", "ability of written expression", "abilityoforalexpression"and"administrativeability/leadership" werereduced bythecountersigning officer Mr.Demetropoulos, the Head of Fisheries Department, from "Excellent" to "Very Good", whereashisrating for "intelligence"wasincreased from 10 "VeryGood"to"Excellent". Asfar as years 1983and 1982areconcerned, in which heis rated as "VeryGood"(4-8-0) and"VeryGood"(5-7-0),respectively,noalterations appear, suchreports havingbeencompiled byMr.Demetropouloshimself. 15 In 1981 his report wasaltered by thecountersigning officer (Mr. Demetropoulos)from"VeryGood" (6-6-0) toagain "Very Good" (5-7-0),item "character"beingreducedfrom "Excellent" to"VeryGood". Noalterations appear for years 1980and 1979,when hewas 20 rated as "VeryGood" (5-5-0) and "VeryGood"(1-7-3),byMr. Demetropoulosalone. It appearstherefore that the saidalterationswerenotmadeat random, but were consistent with the ratings of this officer of otheryearsofwhich thereportswerecompiledbyMr.Demetropoulosalone,theoverallpictureoftheappellantthusnecessarily remainingthesame. 2 ^ As far as the reports of the interested party are concerned which were compiled by a Mr. Economou - they all appear to havebeenextensively altered bythecountersigning officer, Mr. 30 Demetropoulos,oversuccessiveyears,asfollows: Thereportsof 1984werereducedfrom "Excellent"(10-0-0)to "VeryGood"(6-6-0);thoseof 1983werereducedfrom"Excellent" (11-0-0)to"VeryGood"(6-6-0),of 1981from"Excellent" 2152 3CL.R. 5 Sekkidesv.Republic A.LoizouP. (10-0-0)to,rVeryGood"(6-6-0),of 1981from "Excellent"(100-0)to"VeryGood"(6-6-0),of 1980from"Excellent"(9-0-0)to "VeryGood"(5-5-0),of 1979from"Excellent" (9-0-0)toagain "VeryGood"(6-5-0),items"co-operation","intelligence""ability to solve problems" "administrative ability" "leadership" and "character" having been reduced from "Excellent" to "Very Good". Asalreadystatedabovewearenotcompelled bythedecision ofArgyrides(supra)tosetasideeverydecisionofthePublicSer10 viceCommissionwhereaconfidentialreportwasimproperlyprepared,nevertheless,anAdministrativeCourtmustalwaysexaminewhetherafailuretocomplywithanysuchformality isofsuch importanceastohaveaffected theoutcomeofthedecision.Havingdonesointhepresentcase,sincewecannotexcludethelike15 Iihoodthatsuchalterationsmayhavemateriallyaffected thesub judicedecision,wefeel thatin thecircumstancesit mustbeannulled.1Thetest insuchcasesis for theAdministrative Courtto considerwhethertheomissionorwrongcompliancewasofsuch importancethatcouldaffect thecontentsoftheadministrativeact 20 ordecision. Needlesstosaythatmaterial areconsidered all theforms and theprocedureswhicharelaiddowninalawwhichexpresslypro-. videsthatincaseofnoncompliancewiththem,samewillleadto annulment. 25 For all the abovereasons the appeal succeeds and the subjudicedecisionisannulled. In the circumstances, however, therewill be no order as to costs. qn Subjudicedecisionannulled. * Noorderasto costs: 2153