(1988)1988November22 (CHRYSOSTOMIS,J.) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION PMLIPPOSPISKOPOS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 706/85). PublicOfficers—Promotions—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable. PublicOfficers—Promotions—intakingintoaccountaltrelevantfactors,the Commissionmayattributemoresignificancetosomeofthemthan toothers. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Strikingsuperiority—Meaningof. 5 PublicOfficers—Promotions—Seniority—Significanceof. Public'Officers—Promotions—Merit—Carriesmoreweightthantheothertwo factors. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Reports on candidates madebydifferentreporting officers—Significance thattheCommission \Q mayattachtosuchafact. PublicOfficers—Promotions—HeadofDepartment—Recommendationsof— Aseparatefactorpointingtothesuitabilityofacandidate. Misconceptionoffact—Shouldbeprovedbyreference totheAdministrative file andthereasoningofthedecision. Misconception offact—Promotionsof public officers—interested party 2224 15 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 . Piskopos v. Republic chargedbeforeanAssizeCourtwithseriouscriminalchargesreferringtoa periodprior tothesubjudicepromotion—Acquittal—Adversecommentsin thejudgmentasto thewayhecarried outhisduties—Suchcommentscan not be treated as findings offact—Thejudgment could not in any event havebeentakenintoconsideration,asitwasdeliveredafterthesubjudice decision., ,. Theapplicantchallenges thepromotionoftheinterestedparty tothepost of Animal Husbandry Supt. 1stGrade.Theapplicantwassenior tothe in terestedpartybyfive years asregards aprevious postthey bothheld,butas regards thepost of Animal Husbandry,2nd Grade,both parties were ap pointed thereinonthesame day. Moreover,theapplicantwasbetterquali fied thantheinterestedparty and, infact,possessedtheadditional qualifica tionreferred tointheschemeof service. On theotherhand,theinterested party hadbetterconfidential reportsandwasrecommendedforpromotion by theHeadof theDepartment. Theapplicant'scase istwofold, i.e.: (a)Thatheisstrikingly superior totheinterestedparty,and 20 25 (b)ThattheCommission labouredunderamisconceptionof fact,inthat theapplicantfaced serious criminalcharges (Case568/87) relatingjo aperiodbefore (hesubjudice promotionandallegedly reflecting the unsatisfactory way inwhich theapplicant was performing his du ties. , TheCourt, having reiterated theprinciplesgoverningjudicialcontrolof promotion ofpublic officers andhavingexplainedthenotionof"striking superiority", held,dismissing the recourse: iι 30 35 (A)(a)Thefact thattheconfidential reportson thepartieswere notmade by thesamereportingofficer does notcarry thecaseof theappli cantany further. Thelegalpositionissimply thatitisopen to the Commission togivedue weighttothefact thatdifferent reportingofficers cannotbe treatedashaving madetheir assessments by using identical standardsand,therefore,someallowance may have tobemadeforpossibledifferences intheevaluation ofthe variouscandidates. (b)ArecommendationbytheHeadoftheDepartmentisdeemedtobea separatefactor pointing tothesuitability of thecandidateforpro motion. 2225 Piskopos v. Republic
(1988)(c)Inthiscasetherespondentsweighedtogetherallrelevantconsiderations andselectedthemost"suitablecandidatebyattributing,as theywereentitledlodoso,moreweighttotherecommendations - oftheHeadoftheDepartmentandtotheconfidential reportsof theinterestedparty,whichwereundisputedlysuperiortothose 5 oftheapplicantandthusmeritprevailedinthepresentcase. (B)(a)Amisconceptionoffactcanbeprovedbyreferencetotheadministrationfileofthecaseandtothereasoningofthesubjudicedecision. (b)TheAssizeCourtacquittedtheaccusedinCase568/87.Itsjudgment 10 wasnotandcouldnothavebeenbefore theCommission atthe materialtime.AnyadversecommentsmadebytheCourtagainst theinterested partyweremereobservationsandnotfindingsas regardshismerit.Theseobservationsarenotsufficient torebut thepresumption thatthesubjudicedecisionwasreachedafter a 15 correctascertainmentoftherelevantfacts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Georghiouv.TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R.74; 20 HjiSawav.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.76; Larkosv. TheRepublic
(1982)3CL.R.513; Karagiorghis v.CM.C.
(1985)3CL.R.378; GeorghiadesandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1967)3OLA.653; KyriacouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.37; KokidnosandAnother v.TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R. 588; Philotheouv.TheRepublic
(1985)3CX.R.662; Spanosv. TheRepublic
(1985)3CXA. 1826; 2226 25 3 CL.R. : ' Piskopos v. Republic 'lonidesv. The Republic
(1982)3 CL.R. 1136; r , .-,- · ' ; Georghiadesand Another v. TheRepublic
(1970)3 CL.R. 257; • .Q Thalassinos v. The Republic
(1974)3 CL.R. 290; *" ' . * -· .' ' * " . -r- t · - t * - Christodoulou v. OTA
(1978)3 C.L.R..61; » 5 . .• . ' ,_ r *> 5cr^im v. The Republic (19S5) 3 C.L.R. 286; • • · _* " · '-' , -f •"· , j•. ' •, - ' t Soteriadouand Others v. The Republic
(1985)3 CL.R.
- Recourse. . • J ΙΟ , , * • .. . ,< * τ .· ν i · Recourse against the decision of therespondent topromote the 'interested partyto the post of Animal Husbandry Superintendent, 1st Grade,-Departmentof Agriculture in preference and instead of the applicant' ι.> τ ' P t_ ., > -j ,* St. Charalambous, for the applicant. A. VlademiroUy for the respondents. Cwr. adv. vult. 15 20 25 , CHRYSOSTOMIS J. read the following judgment The appli cant challenges the validity of· the decision of the respondent Commission of 16.4.85, by which it promoted Charalambos Argyrides, the interested party, to the post of Animal Husbandry Supt. 1st Grade, Department of Agriculture as-from 15.8.
- T h i s post is a promotion post from that of Animal Husbandry S u p t , 2nd Grade. • / · „. The legality and validity.of the sub judice decision is chal- lenged on the ground that it is unconstitutional/.unlawful, ultra vires, that it lacks due reasoning and that the Commission acted under a misconception of fact and was unlawfully and irregularly influenced by an appropriate authority or,organ. π„ .* 2227 ChrysostomisJ. Piskoposv.Republic
(1988)Inspiteoftheabovecontentions,theapplicantreallyrestshis caseonthegroundthatheisstrikinglysuperiorovertheinterestedparty asregardsmerit,qualifications andseniorityandonthe groundofmisconception of fact Itisafact thattheapplicanthasgotover5yearsseniorityover 5 theinterestedpartyasregardsapreviousposttheyheld,although bothofthemwereappointedonthesamedatetothepostofAnimalHusbandrySupt,2ndGrade.Alsotheapplicanthasgotbetter qualifications. He graduated the A' Gymnasium of Paphos andbetween 1959-61heattendedtheSchoolofAgricultureofthe JQ Universityof Salonica,butheobtainednocertificate ordiploma. During 1968hewasgrantedascholarshipandheattendedasevenmonthcourseinCropProduction attheAmericanUniversity ofBeirut.Following anotherscholarshipduring 1977-78,heattendedin Netherlands asix monthcourseonPigHusbandry, at ,<BarneveldCollegeandheobtainedadiploma.Ontheotherhand, theinterestedpartyattendedtheHighCommercialLyceumofNicosia between 1951-56 but heobtained no certificate. During 1978 he attended in Baghdad an one month training coursein DairyProduction andProcessing,andfrom 12.12.81- 24.12.82 he attended lectures on Sheep and Goat Husbandry (FAOMINEADEP). Boththe applicant, theinterested party and twoothers,were eligibleforpromotionandwererecommendedbytheDepartmentalCommittee.Alsoitcanbesaidatthisstagethattheapplicant, ^5 becauseof hissaid qualifications, wasdeemed tobeinpossession of theadditional qualification referred toin the schemeof service.In spite of theseniority and better qualifications of the applicant, the respondent Commission promoted the interested partybecausehewasconsideredtobethemostsuitablecandidate 30 forthepost,mainlybecausehewasrecommendedbytheHeadof theDepartment andalsofor thereason thatfor thelastsixyears priortohispromotion,hisconfidential reportsweremorefavourablethanthoseoftheapplicant Itisanacceptedprinciplethatitisopentoanadministrativeor- 35 2228 3 CL.R. Piskopos v. Republic Chrysostomis J. ganwhentryingtoselect themostsuitablecandidate,toweigh to gether all relevant considerations andtoattributemoresignifi cance toonefactor,than to another,in thecourse of doing so, provided, however, thatitexercises properly its relevantdiscre5 tion;andthiscourtwillnotinterfere with adecisionof the Com mission whenitappearsthatitwasreasonably opentoittoselect aparticularofficer, insteadof another,for promotion.Whenan organsuchasthePublicService Commission,selects acandidate on the basis of comparison with others, it is not"necessary to JQ show,,in·ordertojustify his selection,thathewas strikingly su perior to·theothersi.On theotherharid^anadministrativeCourt cannotintervene1inordertosetaside^thedecision regardingsuch selection:'uniess itis;satisfied;,by anapplicantinarecourse before it;tthatihe-was;an.eligible;candidatewhowas,strikingly superior to'theone:who>was^selected,.becauseonly insuchacase the organ'whicfrhas.made*the*selection for thepurposeof an appoint ments'promononiisdeemed.tO'haveexceededtheouterlimitsof its'm'scretioniandi,therefore,.to>have-acted'iniexcess orabuseof its"powers;:also; in siicK a'situation thecomplaineddecision-of 20 theorgan.concernedUstoBe regarded!as-either lacking due reasonihg:or;asi)asedOn unlawful-or eiToneousorotherwise invalid : 're&soning:.(Nia£jOtiysseas G'eorgKidwvi THeRepublic (1976>3 •L Cp.R^ 741-.82v83): r ^ **' 35 •ι - The:notiomof:"striking superiority" was analysedlby PikisJ. inHjisawaiv: The Republic
(1982);3}C:U.R'. 76 atp:.78;.inthe' followingterms:: "As theiexpres'sion 'striking;superiority! suggests;.aiparty's superiority*tovalidate anallegationOf:this4&hd· mustlbeselfeyident andapparentfroma.perusaTof/the filesofthecandir dates. Superiority.must beof.suchia^nature*asUO>emergeon' . any view^of thecombined effect'of the.'merit, qualifications andseniority of theparties'compeuhgfor promotion;in other words,itmustemergeasanunquestionablefact;so^tellingvas tostrikeoneatfirst sight" Theoverriding'duty ofme.Commissionin each'andevery.case 2229, Chrysostomis J. Pisfcopos*v.^Republic
(1988)is tosetectthecandidatemostsmta^tetefroomotion andtherecommendationsOftheHeadofthe©apartmentcarry considerable weightwhich cannot be'lightly disreganiied. Also merit should Garryihemostweight everhvis^vis^upciior qualifications. (Lor£os -v..TheRepublic <1982).3(CiL.R.Sl3; Karagiorghis v, 5 CB'.C.
(1985)3CUR.37&fGeorghiatles &Others v. The Re public
(1967)-3CXR.%5$\ffyriacou'&rOthers v.TheRepuMic ((£975)3 CL.R. 37;). As regards thecomplaint'oftlheappflicant thatseniorityoverthe iinteiested partywas notduJyvweighaBJ Ishall reiteratewhatever ,JQ \was;«aidby Lofeou.tJ.,iasiheithemwas;an thecaseof:KokJdrms& (anotherv.ThefcepublicWM) 3CHi;R.588,atp.592,thai sets tthetmatterin iaccorrectfpeTspective: "As regarrlstthe seniority ofthe two applicants as against rlhatofElfeavetXottiaou, itcanohly bestatedwhatwasisaid:in ;jg tttiecasetiiPmctoailTheo'dosiou v.TheRepublic, 2RS.O.C tp. 44 a t p . ^ e «.'that., length,of»service is always onE«ffime ifactors to'Aeconsideredbutitis" notpropertotreatsradhifactor ^exclusivelyasIhevvital"criterionalwaysentitlingtopromotion τthe oneccarididate?atrio$g;:rnany qualified ones,who[possess ^ 0 isuch lorjg service1.'Furthermoreit has tobeborninimntrltthat iin theca&eTarteUideswJThelRepublic
(1969)3 CLfll.4t80,'it 1 was heldt'thatseniority.ought toprevail whenall otfhertihings •weremoreorlessequal:·*» "Hieargument of learned'counsel for the applicant thar.-was built-up because the confidential reports were not raade^byt'the samereportingofficer, doesmottakethiscaseanyfurfher.iln Ibis respectreference may bemadetothecaseofOaysseasiGeorghiou vuTheTRepublic (supra)totheeffect thatitis notptopenijyoperr<to theiPublic Service Commission toevaluate thecontentsof the confidential reports byreferencetotheknowledge afoouttherreporting or countersigning officers making them, although it*is opentotheCommission togivedueweight tothefact that differeotreporting officers cannotbe treatedas having madetheir,as sessments by using identical standardsandthat,therefore,some 35 2230 25 3 CL.R. Piskopos v. Republic Chrysostomis J.^ Jl allowance may hav&to~'b&niade for possible differences, inthe evaluation of various candidates whenhaving notbeenreported * !I .11, t *) i i ' L : • - , · . onby thesamereporung.orcountersigning officer. Thisapproach differs from whatever.iearned^ounsel.for the applicant triedto 5 imputeinhisaddress?Before.leavingthis subject of confidential . reports,"another"extract.ffomuHe'jiidgrneiit of TriantafyllidesiP:, t may by usefully cited byywayyof» guidance,,from the case,of O4ytte^'Ge0r£/uou'(supra£>t^^ . . ·. - ·ί"'*.. • ιη *c u ~n ~ «ι, .»·.»•• •* , ' ' '1 , AlsovidePhiloinebu v.TheRepubUci(i9&5)&<C:L.R. 662?.. ι As regards thecase where acandidatetis.recommendedby.th'e* Headof hisDepartment,asit nappened:in;this:case,the position.is thatsuch arecommendationis deemed'tobefa^eparate factorpointing to the suitability ofthe candidatetforipromotion (videe Spanosν,ΐΜ,Republic
(1985)3CL.R? 1826<ar.p? 1831). Z D k· 'V·.· '' ' ! . ί r : ι'ι i. > >*"r w ' ' , it-",Weare in agreementiwitK^the.learned' trial*Judge thatuKe wholecareerof thecandidatestconcernedlHadtobetakeninto: account; this view hassbeem propounded in,,interaha;. r GeorghiadesandAnother^: TheRepublic,
(1975)3CL^R'.' 143, 150; but, inthejudgmentsinutiatcase it is stated (at.p;. 151) that.itis not.wrong togiye.due:weightito;the more recent: confidential reports;and;the.irhportance:ofuHe*more recentof/ suchreportshasbeenalsoprecognized ihlacovidesv. TheRe^ public,,
(1966)3.C.L.R. 212?22V,;andimayyrjederived;:,tbo,\ from theprovisions ofparagraphs (c)and'(d)Ofisubsection
(1), . of section 44w .of Law 33/67.' i. ' r With theabove.legal positioninmindvil havetconsideredveryy carefully trieundisputed facts of this casefandjlhayeiarrived'at^ the.conclusion thattriesubjudice decisron*suffare-frbm nolegal' defect Thesubjudice decision is dulyreasonedand'suchreasoning:inay;also befoundin theofficial recordsthatwere before the Commission for.consideration,atthemateriartime. IrVarrivihgvat this^onclusion, Ihadinmindall alorigithe principles applicable on this,issue,which were laid down bynhe SupremetCourt ina number of cases. I need notreferin detail to such',cases^and I 2231 Chrysostomis J. IFscopos v..«eputilic <(WS8) shall only(confine.myselfUo cite Ihexase&ftfoniaes-v.'iTheiRepi#7ic<(tt'982)3 0 L . R . ΊΤ36, whereaibriefanalysis omthisissue was made by Ιίοτίβ.υ'.,^ιΐ^ρρ. 1149-11130. ;Funhermore,Q!hold^hewiew that:theTespontleT5tXornmission weighedtogether;allrelevant;considerationsand-selectedtheTnost -.5 suitable-Candidaterhy attributing,as'hewas-enatied todo so, more w i g h t itoimeiTeeommendations^^^^ and to thecorifidential reports<Of;the'interestedEparty;:which were undisputedlyisuperior to.moseLOfitherapplicantand mus meritprevailediinithepresent case.iIntthe:case;6fijGe<7r^Aiflifej &'Andther ,JQ v.T/ieiRe/3M67ic'(r970).3C!L.R.257.'at p.2268, theffollowing was said: "... whereca person appointed.tosa post isiduly qualified.un der theirelevarit,-schemecor>service this Court willmot, on the issue'of suitability, substitute its^own discretion forthat of the jg Commissioniprovided; that the;Commission's discretion has been,properlyexercised; inotheivwords,themerefactthatthe Court,·had it been in the,position.of theCCommission, might possibly not have selected for appointmentthesame candidates asvthe Commission, is not>in itself-sufficient ground for the 20 C o u r tto interfere with,the decision of the Ctorrimission (and see,.too, the case of Vonditsianos and The Republic
(1969)3 C L : R . - 8 3 ; on appeal
(1969)3.C.L.R. 445)." As:regards the allegation of misconception of fact, learned counsel for the applicant based his argument on the fact that a 25 criminal case No. 568/87*was filed in the District Court of Nico sia against the interested party;which covered charges of forgery, fraudulent false accounting, stealing by person in public service, stealing cattle and others and which referred to a period prior to the promotion of the interested party and allegedly reflected the unsatisfactory way the interestedparty was carryingout his work at Athalassa Farm. However the Assize.Court of Nicosia, that tried thatcase,acquitted and discharged the interestaj party on all counts as no primafacie case had been madeout against him. .^232 3 Club. Pkskopos v. Repaftfic Chrjsostomis J. Learned'CTmrwiffox theapplicantin substantiating bis arguementDeferredtocertainadversecomments,thatwere,madeby the . Courtin the-judgment of thatcase, as regards the unsatisfactory way/that theinterested party hadbeen carrying outhis work and 5 subnaittedthatthese comments:are a sufficient proof that thereι spondent Cbosmission acted on- a misconception of fact inpromutingtheinterestedparty onthegroundof merit. 10 15 20 25 30 35 A misconceptionof fact existsinteralia,when thefactual sub stratumuponwhich theadministrative organ based itsdecision is non-existent Such amisconception must bematerial and the pre sumption thatanadministrative decision is reached after acorrect assertainmentof therelevantfacts canberebuttedif alitigant suc ceeds inestablishing thatthereexists at least a probability thata misconception had led tothe taking of the decision complained of. A misconception of fact can be proved by reference tothead ministrationfileof thecase andtothereasoningof thesub judice decision. A useful reference in this respect may be made in the Administrative Law of Michael Dendias,ed. 1965, vol. 3,atpp. 328 and 329 andin Stasinopoulos on theLaw of Administrative Acts-1951 p. 304 etc. Also vide Thalassinos v. The Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 290, 294; Christodoulou v. The CyprusTelecomunication Authority
(1978)3 CL.R. 61, 69; Serafim v. The Republic
(1985)3 CL.R. 286. In thecasefof Soteriadouand Othersv. TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 300, theFullBench of thisCourtheld thattheexerciseof thediscretionary powers of therespondentCommission was ren dereddefective because itreachedthesubjudice decision without knowing that confidential reports were biased. That factor is a material factor which was not within theknowledge of the Com mission at the material time and it was not and could not have been takenintoconsideration. In this case thereis nocomplaint thattheconfidential reports before therespondent Commission weretainted with bias inany way andtheonly material which was placed before meonthis issue,is thesaidjudgment of theAssize Courtof Nicosiaincrimi2233 ; Chrysostomis J. Ptskopos v. Republic
(1988)nalcase No. 568/87,which wasnot andcould not have been before theCommission at the material time, in thatcase, as I have already stated, the interested party was acquittedand discharged on all counts and any adverse comments made by the Court against him weremere observations and not findings as regards 5 his merit.These observations inmy view are not sufficient torebutthepresumption that thesubjudicedecision wasreached after acorrect ascertainmentoftherelevantfacts. Inthecircumstances,Ihavearrivedattheconclusion thatthere was no misconception of fact, there was due inquiry and that it JQ was reasonably open tothe respondent Commission to take the subjudicedecision. Furthermore, theapplicant failed todischarge the onus of establishing hisstrikingsuperiority overtheinterested party,orthat the subjudice decision ought tobe annulled on any of the other ^5 grounds aforementioned. In theresult therecourse fails and ishereby dismissed and the decision oftherespondent Commission is affirmed, Therewill benoorder astocosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderastocosts. 2234 20