3 C.L.R. 1988November25 j . . · . [SAVVIDES,J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICE1146OFTHE (INSTITUTION STAVROSPHILIPPIDES, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLIC OFCYPRUS, THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Case No. 783/86). Reasoning of anadministrative act—Appointments toanoffice in theeducationalservice—inreaching thesubjudice decisionjhe Commissionnoted "theseniorityofthoseofthecandidateswhoatthematerialtimewerepublicofficers"—Two conflictingopinionsregardingmatterofseniorityofapplicant visa visthatof theinterestedparty—Commission did not mention which ofthe twofollowed—Such omission rendered the reasoning defective. " The facts of this case appear sufficiently from the judgment of the Court, , . . Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: MaratheftisandAnother v.Republic
(1986)3C.L.R.533; Republic v.Maratheftis
(1986)3CLJ*. 1407. Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttoappointthe 2283 .A.J.J <
(1988)Philippides v. Republic ttradmsyoVtii;-t?r „ „ . , ,„ . , ^, interestedpartytothepostofDirectorofHigherandHighestEducationinpreference andinsteadof^he applicant. P. Clerides,for ^^m^homm A. S.Angelides, for theinterestedparty. Cur. adv. vult. ,v r challenges _^ ,. .-,._, r the 3rd November, lWoywnereby MichMalosMaratheftis, the interested party,wasappointed tothepostofDirectorofHigher ^ .ari&Higfiest Education,intheMinistryofEducation,asfrom the -souiFheWacaricy*nthepost"*concerned^which»is^First>Eritry-and ^Prb^rno'fion^bst^aS'adVerTi's^ fifths bfriciarGazette^oh th'e'14th 'tey;;1'982!Tnirt¥en v aWtic J ^ wasreferreifao theDepartmentCommittee,,which byitSTeport . 15 amongstwhomtheapplicantand theinterestedparty.Therespondent decided, at its meetingofthe24thJuly, 1983,tointerview ^feveh1cWdiaatesTwfioto 20 mentsof theschemeof service.After theinterviewstherespondent heard theviewsof thev-Director-Generaliof theMinistry of r EdUcarib^^'gardiii^^h^performance-of the candidates during ' such-interView^^riS^evaluated boththeapplicantandtheinterestedpartyasverygood. Thereaften the^e'sponderft r&ju'tfsled the^^tor-General of theMinistryofEducatib^to^ubniiUii^^Kntn^hiS'Views^abou^ the performance during the last twoyears-of thosecandidates who wereeducationalofficers. Bylettenof theDirectordated29th-No- L vember, 1983,bothpartieswereevaluatedasexcellentinthisre- 30 cspeefeoqqboijn_-bnoq?3isriitonoizbabarijJ. nsge wtscttfi 228-4 2i • M§^r?n^e^^^ dentheardalso theviewsof theDirectorof SecondaryEducation c 'fca*S<HUBhg4h&^ η & ^ Ϋ ώ ^ fof t n e ^ i n bim "que^iiSH^srti'io (^) (^ «^) anoriraduzJc.2 ioznoiuivoiq .(Pd\0I .<M WBJ) WUJ soi'noSίκποιίβου Theinterestedparty,Mr.Maratheftis,filed recourseNo.· 570/ 10 "83Πϊ§&ΐ&ΡΛβ^ϊ^ ap01 ffefitrBeRrBf^e'aWncTntoW^ 15 £[ 20 0£ 25 g£ 30; 0 £ 35 TH^rV^WenY^e^ *ίΗ(SS?t andtheFullBenchof thisCourtby itsjudgment.foundtha^'Mr. Philippidespossessed thequalifications required by the scheme teer^ice BufteYmMhe atbiSibftShliife'Mh^fHal^nc^ 1more thaMvV^msR^^^^ cordiffgWShfc^^ of thecandidatesduring such'interviews;,tnererwasa strongJJOS7 §Mityvt«a^^rfeommissiori: waS^al^ufin^toddr^nJalteMfmis'C^nce^fe^^ ^terviews^which misconception?was/enhanced1in-view?ofJ the marginal diife'rehce'in'th^'vMluatibn o'f iH'e^perfdrmance^ofthe -two'^'es1·^ ©E.rciU r 407^es^ Vtressedlthat"theWsVon^e^tcwheji!rf6c6nsidenrn'g "thecasefsHbulcl avoid1placingdecisive1Hmp6r^te(ortheleVaTua 1983',, of theperformance-of the-candidatesat the,interview in J iul^T983}uoo1o ΐη3ΐπυ§τβarilisbisno^ OJjjnibaoooiq3Tro"tofi Ίο aiifiq niemobnii zinainoosri3 OJaofisislsT s^firn oJ γτυ2230θπ ^teefofe'rMns^ "beJiiff^nned b^the;Mlnls%<&iMHSc^ scaTes ^f'tJieri^'vimfo^ aeosiim'aBoift tlfeii^eiiioH tfc<12toSe]3te^bCTl?i98^ 2285 Savvides J. Philippides v. Republic
(1988)pidesisthemostseniorcandidate,followed byMr.Maratheftis. Therespondent sought theadviceof the Attorney-General's office as to the seniority of thetwocandidates. Mr. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, advised the respondent, by letter dated 20th September, 1986,that Mr.Philippides was 5 seniortoMr. Maratheftis in viewof thecombinedeffect of the provisions of s.37,subsections
(3),
(4)and
(5)ofthePublicEducational ServiceLaw(LawNo.10/69). The respondent referred the matter back to the AttorneyGeneral's office for re-examination, stressing importance tothe JQ provisionsofs.37
(3)of theLaw.TheDeputy Attorney-General of the Republic by letter dated the 9th October, 1986,tookthe view that the provisions of subsection
(3)apply in the present case,with theeffect thatMr.Maratheftis isseniortoMr.Philippides. .s Therespondent finally meton the 3rd November, 1986, and selectedtheinterested partyforappointmentasfrom the1stJanuary, 1984,whereupon theapplicantfiled thepresentrecourse. Counselfor applicant basicallyarguedthatthedecisive factor for thesubjudicedecision wasseniorityandthattherespondent, 20 inconsidering theinterested partyasthemostseniorwasacting underamisconception of law.Counselarguedthatthelegalprovisionapplicableiss.37
(5)andnots.37
(3)oftheLaw.Counsel alsosubmitted thatthesubjudicedecisioniscontrarytothecontentsof thepreviousdecisionoftherespondentfor thefilling of -< thesamepostand,therefore,lacksduereasoning. BeforeproceedingtoconsidertheargumentofcounselIfindit necessary tomakereference tothecontentsandcertain partsof the subjudice decision. At its meeting of the 3rd November, 1986, therespondent after makingreference tothejudgment of ™ theFullBenchoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseofTheRepublic v.Maratheftis(supra),totheletteroftheMinistryofEducation regarding thesalary scalesandseniorityofthepartiesandtothe 2286 3C.L.R. Philippides v.Republic Savvides J.' two'letters·containing legal advice from'the AttOrhey^General's office (referred toabove)proceeded asfollows: r ^ .' '· ·- 5 r* . : ' · '" . . ' · ' · ' . %•· · v» * '• '* "•' '' "The Commission, in the light"ofthejudgment of the Supreme Courtin Revisional Appeal No.575guided alsoby the : aforesaid advices of theLegal'Department of the Republic, proceeded tothere-examinationof thefiliihg'of'thepostofDirector of Higher and Highest Education, Ministry of Education;on'the basisof thelegal and factual situation prevailingat thematerialtime." . · •• · 10 Therespondent thereafter evaluated andcompared theprevailingcandidates takingintoconsideration theirpersonal and confidentialfiles,theevaluation and views of theDirector-General of theMinistry, itsown evaluation of theperformance of thecandidates attheinterviews andcontinued as follows: 15 "TheCommission alsopaiddueregard tothe qualifications of thecandidatesand further noted theseniority of thoseof the candidates who at the material time were public officers and educational officers, guided alsobytheaforesaid legal advices of theLegalDepartmentof theRepublic. 20 After particularcomparison ofthesethreecandidatesand aftertheCommission tookintoconsideration allthematerialbefore it, which concerned the merit, qualifications, career and experienceof thecandidates (includingtheir seniority) selected MichalakisMaratheftis asthemost suitablefor thepost." ^ 30 Although it is stated in the minutesof the meeting of the respondent thatit tookintoconsideration theseniority oftheparties inthelightof thetwoadvices bytheAttorney-General's office, it isnot stated anywhere which adviceit followed and which party itconsidered as the most senior. Since the twoadvices from the Attorney-General's office werecontradictory and the respondent does not state which one it followed and whom of the parties it considered as most senior, this Court isnot in aposition to view how the factor of seniority wasevaluated by therespondent and 2287 the sub judice d e c i s ^ j j h j g r e m ^ n ^ ! ^ dice decision defective and since this Courtis unable to exercise ^ n ^ j ^ ^ ^ l ^ f Q i ^ a n O ^ ^ i πι .iiowimmoO ariT" arif ,-d 02!E babiug ?.Vd .o'A lfi3qqA ImioKrviil ni VwcO amain ^i!?^W)^i?Uexl»iith n^prderjforcps.ts.>oi am oj b3bav>G rq -BjubH V- y;"i3^iiiir^ .iioi'jfioubfl hiwigiH bne iVyiH lo toiosi JS gnifijwyiq noiicujii iGunu'i bnij liiSubji#tice><Iecisi0niannulled. No order ^to, castsam arU -lifivaiq j . b twiiiqaioo bnu bowdiw . : *"ϋ M'jriJ imbnoqssi ariT -ΓΙΠ.-J !>nu^n03i3q TtSilj „^hL ':.'• !""*<-.. ·." •;^η'νΑΰί ?jli.uiLn*j*j ^nr 1o inimsD-iOJosiiG srii'lo κν/oiv !„·Ί;; m .: liu^ ad) -laift Itfiinab lijf.bo aril Ίο aonfirmoh'jq υτ!; ' Ί Ι Κ Γ Ί ^ . it VO r U .vii/iniivT arii :xwollor ί-υ bapnii"· =.:"; *• .v ji r"jint arij j/i 23isb .,no, r")'~tilfii>p orf; oj birjsi aub bin.';o- • r.oiitfifnrno'') .>;:] ' *>rij <o a2orfj1o v^noina/ arij b3Jomorin ,Ί K;;*;23]rMbr:!.o arij ϊο bn£ «.ijui^o oifduq yis// arnii lenais" ν*Ί κ or'·.· ΛΜΪ:'Ί l r ^ ι υ.·. jt, Jj^al biwsrrols 3 lj ^d o^Ja btbiu^ ,<M,Jii'!^ I'jriohu'jijbj .oriduqsji jriilo Jnurii.^q./· ι,;^-> • -jit*\u l£ bm: z-alcbrbnxa 33TriJ 023d' "ίοpo'iapqrrrm7'Ii'aincq w * A -JC ' TrsiRrn aril Γ/βnortBisbiKf.oo ojru JIOOJ noRaimmoOarh iaT Γ r nf»'. I S S I G ' J / 2 η ο ί ί ' / Η ΐ ; ' · . . . ,7Γ3';« " ! : i>..i.ij >n,* . : ,:i J-JOI 1 ,',ίποί·* •' 'fur' y.ifc;.''•..(; • »?,1)M;U VcmJlu V., ./.qxa '.Ϊ20ΠSfil 10» 3idCJlU2 ί'ΟΠΊ 3Π1 .S iljitrijulfilv'l feblfiiBiftlM L,J;JJI.'Z οι ad) 'ίο gnijosm aril *io zsiunim ari: '.. b a i ^ ?Λ Ί .IguoriiiA ?'.'.*-'sn arii^o \'ίπο*ιι-ν idr πρι*ιτ'ίθΪ2ΠΡ3 ojn» r'^ni »rj^rij jnsbnoqd ]r ,Ξ^ΓΪΊΟ (i'li'ijnsC-ysnTOJiA orlj yd 23y»vbfi ov/J srii "ioJiigil aril ni •.raq rioiriw bn£ bowollo'r Ji 3oivbc rioiriw 373dw^ns hsmn ion21 Vii; tnorfi 233ivbE owj aril 3οηΪΛ .ιοίπ3ί.jgom sfa zfi baiab^noo Jl iiiabnoqzai 3fiJ DOL vioJofbinJnoa 3ias»· aoilio 2 lEisnsD-y^moJjA ir ?.3incq arij lo moriw brus bawoilol it sno rbiriw aisJg Jon zsob 1 /^iv OJ nonizoq β ni Jonzr nuoO zirii ,τοϊη32 J2om z& bmobiznoo 1 ^ u ;nabnoq23T sriJ vd bsiEui"v3 ?£\^ vjhoin32 Ίο ιοιοεί aril wor 2288