(1988)1988 February 3 [LORIS, J] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREAS PARPASANDANOTHER, Applicants, v. THE REPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THE PUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Cases No 953/85and964/85) Public Officers—Promotions—Confidential reports—Circular 491/79 concerning their preparation, Reg 4 (a)—Reporting officer must have direct knowledge of the assessed officer—In the light of all the circumstances of this case, any irregularity in the preparation of the confidential report of 1984for the interested party is not of a material 5 nature and, therefore, does not affect the validity of the sub judtce promotion Executory act—Intermediate act—Theirinvalidity leads to annulment of the finalact Public Officers—Promotions—Qualifications—Additional qualifications not envisagedasanadvantageintheschemeofservice—Weight ^ Public Officers—Promotions—Striking superiority—Applicant had slightly better confidential reports andmore qualifications, which,however, were notenvisagedas anadvantage, whereasinterestedparty wasrecommended byHeadofDepartment—Applicantfailed toestablishstrikingsuperiority \5 Reasoning of an administrative act—Maybefound either inthedecision itself orin theofficialrecords relatedthereto Thefacis of thiscasesufficiently appear in thejudgmentof theCourt. Recourses dismissed No order asto costs 218 Ο Λ 3 C.L.R. Parpas and Another v. Republic Casesreferredto: Georghiadesv. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 16; Agrotis v.TheElectricityAuthorityofCyprus
(1981)3C.L.R. 503; TheRepublic v. Argyrides
(1987)3 C.L.R.1092; 5 " Cleanthousv.TheRepublic
(1978)3C.L.R. 320; Hjiloannouv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1041; HadjiSawav.TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R.
- Recourses. Recourses against thedecision of therespondent topromote 10 the interested party tothe post of Meteorological Assistant 1st Gradeinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicant. /.Typographos,forapplicantinCaseNo.953/
- A.S.Angelides, for applicant inCaseNo. 964/
- 15 A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 20 LORISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Bymeansoftheabove intituled recourses, which were heard together as presenting common legal and factual issues, the applicants challenge the decisionof therespondentP.S.C.,dated 13.9.1985,wherebythe interested party namely MariosAgathangelou,waspromotedto thepostofMeteorologicalAssistant1stGrade,intheDepartment of Agriculture and Natural Resources, in preference to and insteadoftheapplicants. Beforeproceedingtoexamineanyotherissue,Ihavedecided .219 .oris J. Parpas and Another v. Republic
(1988)3considerfirstthecomplaint totheeffect thatthe confidential eport of the interested party for the year 1984 was prepared ontrary to the provisions of regulation 4 (a) of the relevant 'egulations concerning the preparation and submission of -onfidential Reports in respect of public officers contained in 5 Mrcular491/79. It is well settled that in matters of promotion confidential :ports are intermediate acts and their invalidity leads to the lvalidity of thefinal actof which they form aprerequisite (vide leorghiades v. The Republic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 16, 28 and 1 0 grotisv. TheElectricityAuthority of Cyprus,
(1981)3 C.L.R. 03,413). Regulation 4(a)provides asfollows: "(a) Ο Αξιόλογων Λειτουργός δέον απαραιτήτως να είναιλειτουργός όστις,λόγωτωνκαθηκόντων αυτού,έχει απ' ευθείας γνώσιν της εργασίας του αξιολογουμένου 15 υπαλλήλουκαιδύναται ωςεκτούτουναέκφραση υπεύθυνονκαιέγκυρονγνώμηνεπίτηςεργασίαςκαιτων ικανο τήτων του υπαλλήλου,κανονικώς δε ο Αξιόλογων Λει τουργός δέον να είναι ο εποπτεύων τον υπάλληλον λειτουργός". 20 (English Translation) "(a)TheReporting Officer must necessarily be an Officer whoon accountof hisdutieshasdirectknowledge of thework of theassessed Officer andmay on account thereof, express responsible andvalid opiniononthework andabilities of the 25 Officer and normally theReporting Officer must be theone supervisingthe officer". It is the allegation of counsel for the applicants that as the terested party was working at Paphos during 1984 and the porting officer Mr.L. Stephanou was working inLarnaca,the 30 portingofficer did nothave adirectsupervision of hisworkand 220 3 C.L.R. Parpas and Another v. Republic Loris J. could notexpressaresponsible andvalidopinion on theworkof theinterestedparty for 1984. 5 10 15 20 In deciding this issue I bear always in mind the stand of the Supreme Court as expounded in the case of The Republic v. Argrides
(1987)3C.L.R. 1092and inall subsequent case-lawof this Court, as well as theparticular circumstances of the present case. From aperusalof theconfidential reportconcerned,it appears that in order to prepare such a report the reporting officer had taken into account the views of thereporting officer E. Eliadou, aswell asthoseof Metereological Officers C.Charalambides,A. Larkos and S. Michaelides, who were responsible for shifts. Also, from the confidential reports' file, it is apparent that the reporting officer for the year 1984, namely, L. Stephanou, was thereporting Officer for theinterested party for thepreviousthree years and for 1979, and, therefore, he is presumed to have known himvery well;furthermore inallthosereportstheHeadof Department, CI.Filaniotis, had actedasthecountersigning officer and he had never disagreed with the rating of the reporting officer. Having all the above in mind, I have reached the conclusion that any irregularity inthepreparation of the 1984reportonly,is not, in view of all the circumstances of this case, of a material nature soastoaffect thevalidity of thesub-judice decision. Coming now tothe merits of thecase Iwill consider first the submission of counsel for the applicants, that they should have beenpromoted, insteadoftheinterested party ,becausetheywere strikingly superiortohim. 30 Particulars of the qualifications and service of the candidates aretobefound inalist attached totherelevant oppositions andI donotintend repeating them. Itisobvious from such list that theinterested party was senior 221 Loris J. Parρas and Another v. Republic
(1988)totheapplicants by eight monthsintheimmediately lower post of Metereological Assistant 2ndGrade.As regards qualifications all the candidates possessed the qualifications required by the relevant schemeof service andapplicant Parpas andtheinterested party were more or less equally qualified. What has to be 5 mentioned is that,applicant in Case No. 964/85 (Stavrou) was at the time, a 4th year student in Law of Salonica University and had attended a correspondence course in Advanced Level Physics, Hall Oxford U.K. Since such qualifications of this applicant were not envisaged by the scheme of service they ,Q cannot be treated as an additional qualification, but they have to be weighed together with all othercriteria andcannotconstitutea decisive factor in favour of theapplicant norcanthey indicate by themselves striking superiority of thesaid applicant over theother candidates. (Vide, Cleanthous v. The Republic,
(1978)3 C.L.R. 1 5 320 andHjloannou v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041). From a perusal of the files of the confidential reports, it appears that,having in mind thereports for the last three years, the interested party and applicant Stavrou, were more or less equal with nomarked differences and thattheinterested party had ^0 a better confidential report tothatof applicant Parpas for the year 1984. From the relevant minutes of the respondent Commisssion it appears that the whole career, as it emerges from thefiles of the confidential reports of the candidates, was taken into 2-* consideration by it and reference was made indicatively to the reports of the last three years. I find that there is nothing wrong with theway in which theCommission hadacted in this respect, in view of the fact that all relevant material contained in the personal files and theconfidential reports of thecandidates were 30 taken intoconsideration and weighed together. In view of all the foregoing and the fact that the interested party was recommended for promotion by the Head of Department, notwithstanding the slight superiority of applicant Stavrou as regards merit emerging from therelevant confidential 35 222 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Parpas and Another v.Republic Loris J. reports and qualifications, Iam not convinced by the applicants, on whom the burden wascast, that they were strikingly superior to the interested party. Itis well settled that mere superiority on their part could notjustify the intervention of the Court in their favour and that the interested party did not have to show that he wasstrikingly superior totheothercandidates. Counsel for applicant Parpas complained that after the respondent Commission had found that he was qualified under the scheme of service and decided to treat him, as an eligible candidate aswell,contrary totheconclusion of theDepartmental Committee inthisrespect, itfailed tocarryout adue inquiry asto therealmerit of theapplicant and acted,in thisconnection, under a misconception. I cannot accept this contention because all relevant material contained in the personal and confidential reports files of this applicant wasbefore theCommission atthematerial timeanditis tobepresumed thattheyweredulytaken intoconsideration. Now asregards reasoning, it is well settled that the reasoning behind an administrative decision may be found either in the 2Q decision itself orintheofficial records related thereto (HajiSawa v.TheRepublic, (1972 3 C.L.R. 174,205). In the present caseI am of the view that the reasoning appears adequately in the decision itself and can also, find support from the material contained intherelevant administrativefiles. 25 Intheresultpresent recoursesfail and theyareboth dismissed; let there benoorderas tocosts. Recourses dismissed. No orderastocosts. 223