← Κύπρος

clr/1988/1988_3_2380.pdf

(1988)1988December2 [MALACHTOS, J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASΜ CHRISTODOULIDESANDOTHERS, Applicants, v. 1.EDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMITTEE, 2.THEMINISTEROFEDUCATION, Respondents. (Cases Nos.436181,503/81,1/82,11/82 and125/82). Educational Officers—Promotions—Interviews—Held at two stages 18 months apart—Ground for annulment—Demetriades v. The Republic
(1983)3 C±M. 842 followed. Educational Officers—Promotions—Taking into considerationthe "excellent impression which themembers of the Commission haveof the personali­ ties" of the interested parties—failure to state how the impression was gained—Groundfor annulment—Moreover, theword "have"indicatesper­ sonal knowledge—Groundfor annulment. Inthiscasetheinterviews of thecandidates wereheldin twostages,i.e. thefirstgroupduringApril,1980,and thesecondduringOctober,1981. The minutes of theCommission stated that" taking especially into consideration the excellent impression which the members of the Committee havefor their personality...." Held,annullingthesubjudicedecision: Itcould notbepossible for its members tohave clearly in mindwhen taking thesubjudicedecision on 21.11.1981,theviews formedaboutcandidates interviewed 18monthsear­ lierascompared withtheviews formedfrom theinterviews of candidates whomtheysaw only afew days before taking theirfinaldecision.(Demet­ riades v. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 842 adopted). 2380 Christodbulides v. E.S.C. 3 C.L.R. 5
(2)Itis'notmentionedintheminutesoftheCommitteehowitsmembersacquired suchexcellentimpression abouttheinterestedparties.If it wasthroughtheinterview,theyshouldhavestatedsoastheydidearlieron inthesubjudicedecision,aboutotherfactors.Moreover,theword"have" andnot"formed",oranyothersimilarword,impliessomeelementofpersonalknowledge.(Demetriadescase,supra,adopted). . Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 10 Demetriadesv.TheRepublic
(1983)3GLR.842; Recourses. Recourses against the decision of therespondents to promote theinterestedpartiestothepostofHeadmaster Secondary Educationinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. 15 A.S. Angelides; for the applicants in Cases Nos. 436/81 and 1/
  1. • L. Papaphilippou, for applicantinCaseNo. 503/
  2. D. Demetriades,for applicantinCaseNo.11/
  3. E.Evripidou,for theapplicant inCaseNo. 125/
  4. 20 25 R· Petridou (Mrs.), for respondents. Cur. adv. vuit. MALACHTOSJ.readthefollowingjudgment. Bythepresent recourses,which wereheardtogether asthey attackthe same administrative act,theapplicantsseekadeclarationofthecourt that the decision of the respondent Committee dated 2.11.81 topromote theinterested parties tothepost of Headmaster Secondary Educationisnullandvoidandofnolegaleffect whatsoever. The 2381 Malachtos J. Chrtstodoulides v. E.S.C.
(1988)relevantfactsofthecasesarethefollowing: On7.10.81therespondentCommitteehavingbeenrequested bytheMinistryofEducation tofill ninepostsofHeadmasterin SecondaryEducation,decided,interalia,tocallforaninterview onthe 14thand 15thOctober, 1981,thoseAssistantHeadmasters 5 eligibleforpromotionexceptthosewhohadalreadybeeninterviewed on 21, 22,23, 24and25April, 1980on thebasisofits decision dated28.3.
  1. Atitsmeetingof29.10.81 theDirectorofHigherandSecon- JQ dary Education and the Director of Technical Education were presentandmadetheirrelevantrecommendations. The next meeting was on 12.11.81 when it was ascertained thatbyinadvertenceAssistantHeadmasterK.Constaminideswas notincludedintherecommendationsoftheDirectorforpromo- 15 tiontothepostofHeadmaster. TherespondentCommitteethenproceededtoconsiderthepersonalfiles andconfidential reportsofallcandidatesforpromotion,therecomendarionsoftheDirectorsandthecandidates'merit,qualifications andseniority,aswellastheopinionformed by 20 itsmembersduringtheinterviewsforeachoneofthecandidates anddecidedtopromotetheinterestedpartiestothepostofHeadmaster, SecondaryEducation,onthebasisof alltheaboveand " taking especially into consideration their administrative abilityand/ortheirhighacademicqualifications and/ortheirlong ~experienceaswellastheexcellentimpressionwhichthemembers oftheCommitteehavefor theirpersonality " Thefollowing werepromoted:
  2. K. Constantinides,
  3. N. Petsas, 3.G. Sepos,
  4. A.Pyrros,
  5. A. leorodiakonou,
  6. A.Papanastassiou, 7.A.Hailos,8.V. 30 Christodoulou, 9.L.Fanis, 10.A.Hadjidas, 11.1.Demetriades, 12.Ph. Orphanides, 13.M.Makrigeorgis, 14.A. Papastavrou, 15.Ch. Christou, 16.P.Papazachariou, 17.C.Kalathas. 2382 3C.L.R. Christodoulides v.E.S.C. MalachtosJ. ApplicantinRecourse'No.436/81 attacksthepromotionofinterestedpartiesNo. 10,11, 12,13,14,15 anil
  7. ApplicantsinRecourseNo503/81attackthepromotionofinterestedpartiesNo.5,6,7, 10,11,12,13,14,15, 16,and
  8. 5 ApplicantinRecourseNo. 1/82attacksthepromotionofinterestedpartiesNos.3,10, 12,13,14,15and
  9. ApplicantinRecourseNo.111/82attacksthepromotionofinterested parriesNos. 1,3,5,6,7,9, 10,11,13,14 and
  10. Finally,applicantinRecourseNo. 125/82attacksthepromo10 tion of interested parties Nos.2,3,4, 5,6,7, 8,9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14,16and
  11. * '. Itwascontendedbycounselfortheapplicantsthattheinterval thatelapsedbetweenthefirstinterviewsinApril 1980andtheinterviewsof October, 1981,andthetimethesubjudicedecision wastaken,thatis 18monthslater,wastoogreatforthemembers *5 of the respondent Committee to be possible to make aproper comparisonbetweenthecandidates,intheabsenceofanyrecord kept fortheperformance ofeachcandidateattheinterviews. Relevant tothecasebefore meisthecaseofDemetriades v. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.842whichconcernedpromotions tothepostofAssistantHeadmaster,thefactsofwhicharealmost thesame.Therethesubjudicedecisionwasreachedonthebasis, interalia,ofinterviewseffected intwostagesof18monthsapart, the first stage being in April, 1980, and the second October, 1981,withthesubjudicedecisionbeingreachedonthe2ndNo25 vember, 1981.Atpage853ofthatreportitisstatedthe following: 20 30 "Ifully agreewiththecontentionofcounselforapplicants, thatintheabsenceofanyrecordintherelevantminutesofthe meetingsof therespondent Committeeastothe performance andthespecialviewformed abouteachcandidate,itcouldnot 2383 MalachtosJ. Christodoulides v.E.S.C.
(1988)bepossibleforitsmemberstohaveclearlyinmindwhentaking the subjudice decision on 2.11.1981,the views formed aboutcandidatesinterviewed 18monthsearlierascompared with the views formed from the interviews of candidates whomtheysawonlyafewdaysbeforetakingtheirfinaldeci- 5 sion.IthasbeenheldbythisCourttimeandagainthattheabsenceofanyindication intherecordsoftheEducationalService Committee as to performance of the candidates at the interviews and their marking (if such system was adopted) touchesthevalidityofadecision." ,Q Andfurtherdownatpage854weread: "Moreover,inthepresentcase,inadditiontotheabsenceof anyrecordastotheperformanceofcandidates,especiallyin viewofthefact thatbetween theinterviewsof thefirst group and the second group an interval of more then 17 months 15 elapsed,which byitself issufficient tonullify thesubjudice decision,there are additionalfactors whichindicate someirregularityinthewholeprocedure." Andalsoatp.856: "Theotherpointraisedthesamestatementinthesubjudice 20 decision is withregard to the'excellent impression that the members of the Committee have about their personality '. It is not mentioned in the minutes of the Committee howitsmembersacquiredsuchexcellentimpressionaboutthe interestedparties.Ifitwasthroughtheinterview,theyshould 25 have stated soastheydidearlieronthe subjudicedecision, about other factors. Moreover, the word 'have* and not 'formed', oranyothersimilarword,impliessomeelementof personalknowledge.InthisrespectithasbeenheldinanumberofcasesbyourCourtstoanumberofwhichreference is madeinAngelidouv. TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R.520,at p.526),thatpersonalknowledgeorinformation possessedby membersofacollectiveorganmaybevalidlytakenintoconsiderationprovidedthattheymerelystrengthenthepictureap2384 3C.L.R. Christodoulides v.E.S.C. MalachtosJ. pearinginthefiles;otherwiseitshouldberecordedindetailso astoenablejudicialcontrol." 5 10 Ialsofeelthatthepresentsubjudicedecisionmustalsobeannulled forthesamereasonsasthecase ofDemetriades(supra), becauseIfindthattheabsenceofanyrecordof the"impression themembersoftheCommitteehave"forthecandidates'personalityrendersitsjudicialcontrolimpossible,evenmoresoinview of thegreat interval oftimeof 18months that haselapsedbetweenthetwostagesoftheinterviews. Inviewof theabove,Iconsiderit unnecessary topronounce . ontheremaininggroundsoflawputforwardonbehalfoftheapplicants.Therecourses,therefore,succeedandthesubjudicedecisionasregardsalltheinterestedpartiesisannulled. OnthequestionofcostsImakenoorder. 15 Subjudicedecisionannulled. . Hoorderastocosts. I 2385

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.