clr/1988/1988_3_2303.pdf

(1969)3C.L.R.486; Enotiadouv.TheRepublic

(1971)3CLR. 409; TheRepublic vJPSHffi (ΐΜϊΉ&ΉΤ&ρ-**' !r -" Georghiou v. TAefepuMic

(1976)3CLJ*. 74; Λν'Georghiades'andAnotherv. TheRepublic

(1970)3C.L.R.

1. Recourse™ : ?- 1 Ϊ Λ ι ν ' n " • ^ ^ • Μ » ί ' » ν ί · - ν ^ ^ ^ ο ^ η η ο Ό » ^ : Recourse against the decision of the resj^n^ent^pipmote^the interested parties tothe post of Inspector A inthe Secondary EducariQn'nupreference^and-insteadof the a p p l i c a h t r ^ ^ O ^ ^ » : * : Μ 10 ζ A. PapacharalambouSy for theapplicant7 i l Q a κ · Χ Λ Λ χ ^ ^ } ί ψ ' ϊ,ν'.*<·, ,,-,Γ ' .^ -Λ .-.·,, ,Α— Λ'/Μ*i.-oVlVsj. -·*1ιΰ«\σΑ—i^s^typjwftVjH^S ^R. VfQhimrPetridou,(Μ&·)> ior;the-resppndents.:vw*Wt-s?on 15 in this recourse challenges the validity of the decision of the re- y$&t$£88s^^ ^e^t^paitjes, nanrcly^ Kapastavnniito»the p o s r o f i n s p e c t e d The facts of the case,so far asrelevant,arethefollowing: 230i£ 20 3C.L.R. 5 Stylianou v.Republic MalachtosJ. Thepostinquestion isafirst entry andpromotion post.Followingtherelevant advertisementin theOfficial Gazetteof the Republic,tenapplicantsappliedforthepost,amongwhomwere the applicant and theinterested parties.All threeof themwere headmastersinthesecondaryeducation. TheCommitteeasitsmeetingof 13.4.87,decidedtoinviteall thecandidatesforaninterviewon25.4.
2. Atitsmeetingof24.4.87theCommitteeprescribedthecriteria thatwouldbetakenintoconsiderationwithregardtotheevalua10 lionoftheperformanceofthecandidatesattheinterview. At its meeting of 25.4-87 at which Andreas Phylactou, the ActingDirectorofSecondaryEducationwaspresent,allthecandidateswereinterviewedbythe.Committee.Afterthewithdrawal ofMr.Phylactou the^mmittee continued itsdeliberationsand 15 onthebasisof thecriteriawhichitprescribed thepreviousday, decided that theperformance of the twointerested parties was "excellent"andthatoftheapplicantwas"good".Inarrivingatthe aboveevaluationthe.CommitteegavefullreasonsinitsMinutes. Atits meetingsof 30.4.87,2.5.87and5.5.87theCommittee 20 examined thepersonal files and theconfidential reports of the candidatesandadjourned thefurther consideration of thematter for its next meeting which took place on 6.5.
3. At this latter meetingtheCommittee,afterreferringtoitspreviousMinutesand forthepurposeofdeterminingthemeritsofthecandidates,took 25 intoconsideration thecontentsofthepersonalfilesandtheconfidentialreportsofeachcandidate,theirperformanceattheinterview andtherecommendationsoftheHeadof theDepartmentandthe servicereportofeachoneofthem. 30 • Asregardsthe applicant for theschool year 1977/78 hewas awarded 37 marks and for the years 1981/82 and 1983/84 38 marks. , , Asreagards interested party Np.l, for the year 1980/81 38 2305 MalachtosJ. Stylianouv.Republic

(1988)marksandfortheyear 1982/8339marks. As regards interested party No.2, for the year 1975/76 37 marks, 1979/8038marksandfor 1983/8439marks. Regarding theperformance of thecadidatesattheinterview, theCommitteereferredtoitspreviousminutes,wherebyinterest- 5 edpartyNo.l madethebestimpressionoutofallthecandidates whereastheapplicantwasdescribedas"good". Regarding the recommendations of the Head of theDepartment,theCommitteehadbeforeitaletterdated4.5.87fromMr. Phylactou,theActingDirectorofSecondaryEducation,inwhich 10 five outofthetencandidateswererecommendedinalphabetical orderincludingthetwointerestedparties.Theapplicantwasnot included.Inthesaid letterofMr.Phylachtou,thefollowing was stated: "Theserecommendationsaresubmittedafteranexamination 15 ofthepersonal filesandconfidentialreportsofthecandidates andafter takingintoconsideration theimpressionmadeinthe courseof theinterviewofthecandidatestotheCommitteeof Educational Service,inwhichIparticipated,andalsothedeliberationIhadwiththeInspectorofPhylologicalSubjects." 20 TheCommitteethenwentonanddealtwiththequalifications of the candidates wherethey ascertained that allthecandidates possessed the necessary qualifications required by therelevant schemesof service and further found thatthehighest qualifications were possessed by candidates Makrides and Antoniades 25 whopossessedaPh.D.degreeandthenextbestqualifiedcandidates werePapastavrou andTheodoulou whopossessed apostgraduate degree M.A. and M.Sc. Finally, the Committee dealt withtheseniorityofthecandidatesandstatedthatundertheprovisions of the existing legislation those possessing the post of 30 HeadmasterSecondaryEducation,weresuperiorinseniority.As theapplicantandtheinterestedpartieswerepromotedtothepost of Headmaster on the sameday,i.e. 1.9.84,theirsenioritywas 2306 3C.L.R. 5 10 jf Stylianou v.Republic MalachtosJ. determinedfromthedayoftheirpromotiontothepostofAssistantHeadmaster.InterestedpartyNo.1 waspromotedtoAssistant Headmasteron 15.9.73andapplicanton1.9.71 whereasinterestedpartyNo.2on9.11.81.Thereafter therelevantminutesofthe Committeeread:"TheCommitteeonthebasisoftheprovisions ofthelawandafter takingintoconsiderationthemerits,qualificationsandseniorityof thecandidates andbyevaluating allthese criteriaandgivingdueweighttoeachoneofthem,arrivedatthe conclusionthatIoannisLoizidesandTheodoulouDoros,interestedparty No.l,presentthebestpicturecompared withtheother candidatesandtheyarethemostsuitableforpromotiontothevacantpost Mr.IoannisLoizidesismanifestly superiorinseniorityandas emergingfromtheaforesai'', !.Jisamongthecandidateswhoare superiorinmerit.Thefact thatcertaincandidatespossesshigher qualificationscannotneutralisethesuperiorityofMr.Loizidesin meritandseniority.Mr.D.TTieodoulouisoneofthebestcandidatesasregardsmerit:Mr.TheodoulouhaslackedbehindinsenioritycomparedwithCharalambousMenelaos,PapastavrouAndreas andKinanis Alexandras,whileMr.Stylianou Theodoras hasslightsuperiority asregardsseniority overhimbutheissuperiorinmeritandqualifications. OnthebasisoftheabovetheCommitteeunanimouslydecided tooffer promotiontothepostofInspectorA,SecondaryEducation forPhilologicalSubjectstoMr.IoannisLoizidesandDoras ' Theodoulou witheffectfrom7.5.87. Atitsmeetingofthefollowingday,7.5.87theCommitteeproceededfirsttotheapprovaloftheminutesofthepreviousmeeting andthereafterdealtwiththenonacceptanceoftheofferofpromo** tion byMr.IoannisLoizideswhovisited theoffice oftheCommitteeon7.5.87and handed aletter whereitwasstatedthathe didnotaccepttheoffer ofpromotiontotheabovepost.Asa resulttheCommitteedecidedtorevokeitspreviousdecisiondated 6.5.87, as far as Mr. Loizides was concerned. Thereafter the 35 Committeeproceededtoconsiderafresh thefilling ofthevacant 2307 MalachtosJ. Stylianou v.Republic

(1988)postandindoingsoitconsideredafresh allthecandidates.Inthe end,it decided thatinterested partyNo.2wasthemost suitable candidateanddecidedtopromotehimtotheabovepostandgave thefollowingreasons: "(a)heissuperiorinmerittoallthecandidates; 5 (b)thoughhelacksbehindinsenioritycomparedwithMr. Charalambous,heissuperiorinmeritandqualifications;and (

1. c)heissuperior in seniority and merit than all theother candidates". Themaincontentionsofcounselfortheapplicantwere: 10 (i)that withregard tothepostofInspectorA,thepreviously prevailingpracticeforanumberofyearswastocarryouta"majorinspection"forthesaidpost.Thoughapplicanthasbeenservingfor threeyearsasheadmaster,hehadnotbeeninspectedand gradedasaheadmaster,whereasothercandidateswereinspected 15 andgraded; (
2. ii)thatthereisavacuuminthewholeprocessbecauseoneof themembersoftheCommittee(Mr.Olympios),wasabsentfrom the meetingsof the Committee dated 5.5.87,6.5.87and7.5.87 whereas he was present at the previous meetings of 7.3.87, 20 13.4.87, 24.4.87, 25.4.87, 30.4.87 and 2.5.87; (
3. in)thatthetwoyearspost-graduateoftheapplicantwasnot evaluated on the basisof its actual contents and in connection with the qualifications required by the schemes of service viz "Post-graduateeducationinpedagogics"; (
4. iv)that thesaidpost isa first entry andpromotionpostand theCommitteeoughttohavetakenintoconsiderationalltheyears of serviceofthecandidatesupto31.9.86.In theinstantcaseinterestedpartyTheodoulou had24yearsofserviceandinterested party Papastavrou 22 years, whereas applicant has27years of 30 2308 25 3CXJL Stylianou v.Republic MalachtosJ. • service; (v)thattheCommitteegaveundueweightandimportanceto theperformanceofthecandidatesatdieshortoralinterview. Finally,andarisingoutofthefactthatthemeetingoftheCommittee of 6.5.87ended at 1.30 p.m.andthat the minutes ofthe said meeting were approved on thefollowing day at9.30 a.m. < andthatthereafter theCommitteerevokedthepromotionofIoannisLoizides,andproceeded todeal with thefilling of thepost afresh, andthatthepromotionofLoizideshadbeenpublishedin thepress before theapproval of the minutes,it was contended thattheminuteswerefabricated: Asregardscontention(i)above,itisclearfromthewordingof therelevantregulationsthatthecarryingoutofa"majorinspection" isnot at allmandatory orcompulsory.Therefore, thenon carryingoutofa"majorinspection"oftheapplicantcannothave anyeffect onthesubjudicedecision. Regardingcontention(ii),itcannotbesaidthattheabsenceof amember.of.a Committeefromthelastthreemeetingscan affect atallthevalidityoftheproceedingsorthesubjudicedecisionso longasthisdecision istaken bytherelevantmajority of theremainingmembers.(SeeVivardiv.VineProductsCouncil

(1969)3 C.L.R.486andloanna Enotiadou v.TheRepublic

(1971)3 C.L.R. 409). Asregardscontention (iii),itisclearfrom theminutesofthe Committee that it gavedue weight and properly evaluated the post-graduatequalification oftheapplicantalongwiththequalificationsofalltheothercandidates. Astocontention(iv),boththeapplicantandtheinterestedpartieswereintheEducational Serviceandwereholdingthepostof HeadmasterinSecondaryEducationand,therefore,asfarasthey areconcerned, thesubjudicepostwaspromotion post Thisbeingtheposition,theCommitteedidnotactinamannercontrary 2309 !• '• MalachtosJ. Stylianou v.Republic

(1988)tolaw bytaking intoaccounttheirseniority. Asregards theallegation thattheCommitteeattachedgreatim­ portancetothefactorregardingtheperformanceofthecandidates during theinterview, Imustsay thatsuchcontentionis notatall borneoutfromthecontentsof therelevantminutes.Onthecon- 5 trary, the Committeeconsidered theperformance of the candi­ dates andgave toit theproperweight. (See in thisrespectThe Republic v.Petrides

(1984)3C.L.R.379). As regards the contentionthat the minutes were fabricated, thereis nothingimproperorillegalinthepublicationof thedeci- 10 sionof therespondentCommitteeinthepressbefore theapproval of theminutesandintheabsenceof anyevidence,Iamnotpre­ paredtohold thattheminutesof 6.5.87were fabricated merely because themeetingendedon6.5.87andtheminuteswere ready. by 9.30 a.m.thefollowing morning. 15 Lastly, thesubjudice decisionbeing adecisionreachedin the exercise of discretionary powers by theproperorgan, its validity has tobetested by reference totheprinciples governing judicial controlofadminsitrative action. Theseprincipleswereverylucid­ ly stated in the case of Georghiouv. The Republic

(1976)3 20 C.L.R.74 atp. 83: "As itappearsfromthecase-law inGreece, whichissetout in "Επιθεώρησις Δημοσίου Δικαίου και Διοικητικού Δικαίου"whenanorgan,suchasthePublicServiceCommis­ sion,selects acandidateonthebasisof comparisonwith oth- 25 ers,it is notnecessary toshow, inorder tojustify his selec­ tion,thathewas strikingly superiortotheothers.Ontheother hand,anadministrative Court cannotintervene inordertoset aside thedecisionregardingsuch selection unless itis satis­ fied, by anapplicantin arecoursebefore it,thathewaseligi- ^ blecandidatewhowas strikingly superior totheonewhowas selected, because only in such a case the organ which has madetheselection for thepurposeof anappointment orpro­ motionis deemedtohave exceeded theouterlimitsofitsdis2310 3C.L.R. 5 Stylianou v.Republic MalachtosJ. cretion and,therefore, tohaveactedinexcessorabuseof its powers;also,insuchasituationthecomplainedofdecisionof theorganconcernedistoberegardedaseitherlackingduereasoningorasbasedonunlawful orerrouneousorotherwiseinvalidreasoning. Useful reference, inthisrespect,maybemadetotheConclusionsfromtheCase-LawoftheCouncilofStateinGreece, 1929-1959, p.268,and to the decisions of such Council in • cases601/1956,778/1956and277/1964. 10 ThisCourthasfollowed thesameapproachinanumberof cases, such astheEvangelou case, supra (at p.300);and,of course,theonusofestablishinghisstrikingsuperiorityliesalwaysontheapplicantinarecourse(seeGeorghiadesandAnotherv.TheRepublic

(1970)3C.L.R.257,269)". 15 Inthecaseinhand,Ihavereachedtheconclusionthattheapplicant,onwhomtheonusofprooflies,failed toestablish strikingsuperiorityovertheinterested partiesandthisrecoursemust fail. Intheresult,therecourseisdismissedbut,inthecircumstan20 ces,Imakenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 2311