clr/1988/1988_3_2407.pdf

(1988)Casesreferredto: Theodossiou v.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C. 44; Partetlidesv. TheRepublic

(1969)3C.L.R.480; Lordosandothersv.TheRepublic

(1974)3CX.R.447; TheRepublic v.Ekkeshis

(1975)3CXJ*.548; TheRepublicv.Haris

(1985)3C.L.R. 106; Aristodemouv.TheRepublic

(1986)3CLA.434; Eliav,TheRepublic

(1985)3CJLR. 38; HjiSawa v.TheRepublic

(1982)3CLR. 76. Recourse. 10 Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondentstoappoint the interested party to thepost of Airport Supervisor in the Departmentof CivilAviation inpreference andinsteadoftheapplicant. Th.Montis, for the applicant M. Cleridou -Tsiappa (Mrs.),for therespondents. ^ Cur. adv. vult. BOYADJISJ.readthefollowingjudgment. Bythepresentrecourse theapplicant seeksa declarationof theCourtthat "theact and/or decision of the respondents published in the Official Gazette of the Republic on 14.2.1986 whereby they appointed Mr. Chnstakis Shekkensin thepermanent post ofAirport Supervisor (Ordinary Budget) in the Department of Civil Aviation from 1.1.1986instead ofappointing and/orpromoting theapplicant to theaforesaid post,isvoid and withoutlegaleffect". 25 2408 3 C.L.R. Aristodemou v. Republic Boyadjis J. Thesalientfacts arebriefly asfollows: 5 ΙΟ By hisletterdated 10July 1985addressed totheChairmanof thePublicService Commission,theDirector-Generalof theMin­ istry of CommunicationsandWorksappliedfor thefillingofone vacantpost (Ordinary Budget) of Airport Supervisor in the De­ partmentof Civil Aviation. TheMinisterof Financehadagreed with thefillingof theaforesaid post which,inaccordancewith therelevant scheme of service, is apromotionpost. Inview of this,thePublic Service Commissiondecidedon 18July 1985 to / submittothechairman of theappropriateDepartmentalBoarda listof thecandidatestogetherwith thefilesof their confidential reportsandtheschemeof serviceof thepost By his letterdated 14 November 1985, theChairmanof the DepartmentalBoardinformedthePublicService Commission that 15 initsmeetingof 18October 1985ithadunanimouslydecided(

1. a)thatfivecandidatesincludingtheapplicantand theinterestedparty possessed thequalifications required by the scheme of service and (
2. b)torecommendfor promotionfour candidates including theinterestedparty ChnstakisShekkensbutnotincludingthe ap2Q plicanLHavingevaluated theseveralcandidates, theDepartmental Boardexpressed theviewthat theinterestedpartywas the bestas far as merit is concernedand thattheapplicant was lacking in meritcomparedwith thefour candidateswhich ithaddecidedto suggestforpromotion. 25 3" 35 Atitsmeetingon30November 1985,thePublicService Com­ mission decided toexamine thematterata subsequent meeting whichtheDirectorof theCivil Aviation Departmentwould be in-, vited toattend.This meeting tookplaceon 20December 1985. TheDirectorof theDepartmentof Civil Aviation was presentand herecommendedfor promotion totheaforesaid vacantpostthe interested party whose performance was better thanthatof the others.TheCommission thendealt with theevaluation andthe comparisonof thecandidates.Itexaminedthematerialfacts ap­ pearing in thefile which hadbeen openedfor thefillingof the postandthepersonalfilesandtheconfidentalreportsof thecan2409 Boyadjis J. Aristodemou v. Republic ι

(1988)didates andtook also intoconsideration theconclusions of the DepartmentalBoard andtheopinionandrecommendationofthe Directorof theDepartmentofCivilAviation anddecidedtoadopt thelatter'srecommendation.Theminutesof themeetingarecon­ cludedby thestatementthat,havingtakenintoconsiderationall 5 thematerialfacts before it,theCommissiondecidedonthebasis of theestablished criteria taken together (merit, qualifications, seniority) thattheinterested party is superiorcomparedwith all theothercandidatesanditproceededtopromotehim,beingthe mostsuitable candidate,toaforesaid vacantpostasfrom 1stJan- 1 Q uary 1986.Theaforesaid decisionof thePublicServiceCommis­ sionwas published in theOfficial Gazetteof theRepublicdated 14February 1986. Feelingaggrievedwith theaforementioneddecisionofrespon­ dent No. 1,the applicant seeks tohave it annulled throughthe ,« present recourse filed on 18 February 1986 on the following grounds: "(a)Theactand/ordecision is contrary tothe Law and the relevant Regulations and/or contrary tothelawful procedure andthelawful criteriaof selection. 2« (b)The act and/ordecision was taken in excessof power and/orinabuse of power and/orby thewrongexerciseofdis­ cretionarypower,havingregardtothe qualifications, the merit andtheexperienceof the candidates. (c)Theactand/ordecision was theresult of materialmis- 25 conceptionconcerningthe facts, theLaw andthelawful citeria of selection. (d) Theinterestedpartdoesnothave thequalifications for thepostsetoutintheSchemeof Service. (e)The act and/ordecision is notduly reasoned and/oris based onamisconceived reasoning". 2410 30 3 C.L.R. ; Aristoderoou v. Republic Boyadjis J. Theinterestedparty,thoughduly servedwith noticeof these proceedings,hasnotappearedandhasnottakenanypart therein. Intheiroppositionfiledon28 May 1986,therespondentsallege thatthesub-judice decisioniscorrectandinaccordancewiththe 5 . law andwas takenbyrespondent 1afterdueconsiderationof all relevant facts andintheproperexerciseof itsdiscretionary pow­ ersvestedinitby thePublicServiceLaws. Inhiswrittenaddresslearnedcounselfor theapplicantsubmit­ tedthattheapplicantandtheinterestedpartyhavemoreorless the 10 same qualifications and the same knowledge of English lan­ guage;thatasfar asmeritiscorncernedthereis nodifference be­ tween the two for theyears 1982 and 1983 since they areboth ratedintheirrespective confidential reportsasvery good;thatitis onlyfor theyear 1984thatintheconfidentialreportsthe applicant 15 is ratedasvery good.whereas theinterestedparty is rated as ex­ cellent; thattheCourtshould reject theconfidential reports for 1984inviewof thefact thattheinterestedpartywas therein up­ gradedto"excellent'\because thereappearseachyearfrom1982 onwardsanup-gradingof theability oftheinterestedpartytoex2 0 press himself in writing andof the standard of his inteligence, somethingwhich ispractically imposible; that theapplicanthasa threeyears' seniority over theinterested-party; andthat,had the respondentsconsideredthetwomenequalas theyoughttohave. doneasregardstheirqualifications and merit, theapplicant'ssen25 iorityover theinterestedpartyoughttohave ledthe respondents tothedecision topromotetheapplicanttothesub-judice vacant post inpreference todie interested party. Insupport of his last submission counselreferred theCourttothedecisions in Theoaossiou v. TheRepublic, 2 R.S.C.C.44,andPartellides v.The 30 Republic

(1969)3 C.L.R.480, where it was heldthat,allother thingsbeingmoreorlessequal,thecriterionof seniorityprevails. Mr. Montisforapplicant hasalsosubmittedthatinthe sub-judice decision therespondentsdonotsetouttheirspecific reasonson account of which they have ignored theapplicant's substantial 35 seniority over theinterestedparty;therefore,counselconcluded, thesub-judice decision mustbeannulledfor lack of due reason­ ing. 2411 ν. BoyadjisJ. Aristodemou v.Republic

(1988)Ishallnowexaminethesubmissionsofcounselfor theapplicantinthelightof thematerialplacedbeforemewhichincludes thepersonalfilesandtheconfidentialreportsoftheapplicantand theinterestedpartyrespectively andbearingalsoinmindthefollowingprinciplesofadministrativelaw: 5 (a)Intheabsenceofanyconcreteevidenceestablishinglack ofacorrectascertainmentofallrelevantfacts,thepresumption ofregularity -"omniapresumunturriteesseacta"appliesand theadministrative decision isthereby treated ashavingbeen reached after proper ascertainment andevaluation of allrele- JQ vant facts: ParaskevasLordosand othersv. The Republic

(1974)3C.L.R. 447; (b)Theburdenofestablishingthatanadministrativedecisionwasreachedonthebasisofamisconception aboutamaterialfact liesonthepersonchallengingthevalidityofsuchde- 15 cision on this ground: TheRepublicof Cyprus v.Nicolas Ekkeshis

(1975)3C.L.R.548; (c)TheparamountdutyofthePublicServiceCommission ineffecting promotionsistoselectthecandidatemostsuitable inallthecircumstancesofeachparticularcasefor thepostin 20 question.Thelength of serviceofeachcandidate,thoughalwaysafactor tobeconsidered,isnotalwaystheexclusivevitalcriterion for suchpromotion:MichaelTheodossiouv. The Republic(supra); (d)TherecommendationofaHeadofDepartmentisamost 25 vitalconsiderationwhichshouldweighwiththePublicService Commission incasesof promotionfor thesimplereasonthat theHeadofDepartmentisinapositiontoappreciatebestofall thedemandsof theposttobefilledandthesuitabilityof the several candidates to discharge efficiently theduties of the ^ post.Thisappliesafortiori tocaseswherespecializedknowledgeandabilityarerequiredfortheperformanceofcertainduties. IfthePublicServiceCommission decidetotaketheexceptional course and disregard such recommendations, they 2412 3C.L.R. Aristodemou v.Republic Boyadjis J. have to give their reasons for so doing: M. Theodossiou v. The Republic (supra) and The Republic v. Haris

(1985)3 C.L.R. 106; 5 10 (e)Section 44

(3)of thePublic ServiceLaw 1967 (Law33/ 67) provides that, in making a promotion, the Commission shallhavedueregardtotherecommendations madeinthisrespectbytheHeadofDepartment inwhich thevacancy exists, andtotheannualconfidentialreportsonthecandidates; (f) Incasesofappointment orpromotions toanypublic office "meritshallcarrythemostweightbecausethefunctions of a publicofficer arebetterperformed in thegeneral interest of thepublicbyapublicofficer whoisbetterinmeritthan seniority or qualifications" per Stylianides,J. inA. Aristodemou v. TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.434,atp.443;and 15 (g)Inordertosucceedin acasesuch asthepresentone,an applicant mustestablishhisstrikingsuperiorityovertheparties selected for promotion. In Michael Elia v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 38, Stylianides, J. said the following at p. 45: 20 "Itis asettledprincipleof administrativeLaw thatwhenan organ, such asthePublic ServiceCommission, selectsa candidate onthebasisofcomparison with others,itis notnecessary to show, in order tojustify his selection, that he was strikingly superiortotheothers.Ontheotherhand, anadministrativeCourtcannot interveneinordertosetasidethedecisionregarding such selection unlessitissatisfied, byanapplicantin arecourse before it, thathewasaneligible candidate whowas strikingly superior to theone whowas selected,becauseonlyinsuchacasetheorganwhich hasmadetheselectionforthepurpose ofappointment orpromotion isdeemed to haveexceeded theouterlimitsofitsdiscretionand, therefore, to have acted inexcess or abuseof itspowers; also in such a situation thecomplainedofdecisionoftheorganconcerned is to beregarded as either lacking due reasoning or as based on 25 3Q 2413 BoyadjisJ. Aristodemou v.Republic

(1988)unlawful orerroneousorotherwiseinvalidreasoning-(Odysseas Georghiouv. TheRepublic,

(1976)3C.L.R. 74, atp. 83)." Theexpression "strikingsuperiority"inthecontextofthelast aforementioned principlemeansnothinglessthantheapplicant's 5 superiority must bea striking, self-evident and unquestionably apparentfact emerginginonanyviewofthecombinedeffectof the merit, qualifications and seniority of the competingcandidates:Hadjisawav.TheRepublic

(1982)3C.L.R. 76. Havingrefened totheprinciplesthatwillguidemeintheex- 10 animation of thepresent case,Inowfocuss myattentiontothe submissionsoftheapplicantwhohasabandoned,inthecourseof thetrial,hisallegationsetoutinthe groundsoflawonwhichthe applicationisbased,totheeffect thattheinterestedpartydoesnot possess thequalifications required bythescheme of servicefor 15 the sub-judice post, andhas inessencelimited hiscomplaint to theallegationthattheseniorityoftheapplicantshould,inthecircumstancesofthepresentcase,havetiltedthescalesinfavourof thepromotionoftheapplicantinsteadoftheinterestedparty.The factual substratumof thiscomplaintconsistsof theallegationof ^n theapplicantthatheandtheinterestedpartyaremoreorlessequal asfarasqualifications andmerit Ifthisallegationiscorrect,then thesub-judicedecisionisliabletobeannulledbecauseapplicant's seniority shouldprevailinaccordance withtheprinciplesofadministrativelawhereinabovesetout. Itiscommongroundthattheapplicanthasasubstantialseniority over theinterested party. Itisalsocommon groundthatthe qualifications ofthetwomenaremoreorlessequal.Thisisnot, however, true as far as the merit of thetwomen is concerned. ThePublicServiceCommissionactedthroughoutontheassump- •*" tion,andthisisthereasoninggivenfor theirdecision,thattheinterestedpartyisbyfarsuperiorinmeritcomparedwiththeapplicant.Aretheyrightintheirassumption?Theircounselsaysthat theyare right Theyhadtheopinionandtherecommendation to thateffect oftheHeadoftheDepartmentconcerned.Additional 35 2414 3C.L.R. 5 Aristodemou v.Republic Boyadjis J. evidence of"this fact is to befound in the confidential reports which werebefore theCommission andwhich for anumberof consecutiveyearsuptothedateofthesub-judice decisioncomposeapictureplainlyillustratingconstantsuperiorityovertheapplicant It followsfromthe above that the argumentof theapplicant that,allotherthingsbeingequal,hisseniorityshouldprevail,has nosoundfoundation andcannotsucceed, The sub-judice decision wasreasonably open to the respon10 dentCommissionandnovalidgroundexistsfortheCourttointerfere withtheresultoftheexerciseoftheCommission'sdiscretion inthematter.Farfrom dischargingtheonuscastuponhim byshowingthattheapplicanthasstrikingsuperiorityovertheinterestedparty,therelaventmaterialbeforetheCommissionclearly 15 Showsthat theinterested party wassuperior inmeritcompared withtheapplicant.Furthermore,aperusaloftherelevantminutes andthematerialinthefile showsthattheCommissionreachedits sub-judicedecision after full enquiryinaccordancewith lawful procedure,dulyapplyingthecorrectcriteriaofselectionandhas 2Q 'givenadequatereasonsforit. In theresult, therecourse must fail. Idonot propose,however, tomakeany order astocosts considering all diecircumstances. Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 25 2415