clr/1988/1988_3_2519.pdf

(1988)3 CJLJt. 838followed. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Circular490179concerningtheirpreparation—Alterationsbycountersigning officerinamanner contraveningtherulesinthecircular—Anirregularity,whichleadstoannulmentonlyifitisconsideredasmaterial—Sekkides v.TheTheRepublic

(1988)3 CMJi. 2136followed. 2519 Erodotou v. Republic

(1988)IndismissingtheserecoursestheCourtexpoundedthelegalprinciples, whichsufficiently appearinthehereinaboveheadnote. Recoursesdismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: _ TheRepublicv.Argyrides

(1987)3C.L.R.1092; Zyngasv.TheRepublic

(1988)3CiJ*.838; Sekkides v.TheRepublic

(1988)3 CX.R.

1. Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondent to promote theinterestedparties tothepostof Agricultural Officer andAgricultural Officer Ainpreference andinstead oftheapplicant 10 A. Scordis, for the applicant. A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. 15 G. Triantajyllides, for interestedparty No.4in CaseNo.587/
2. Cur. adv. vult. A. LOIZOU P. read the following judgment. By the present recourses which were tried together as they present common issuesoflawandfact, theapplicant seeksadeclarationoftheCourt as follows: 20 Byrecourse No.586/85 that: "The decision of therespondent Commission published in theofficial Gazette of the Republic topromote the interested 25 2520 3 C.L.R. Erodotou v. Republic A. Loizou P. party,I Mytilineos tothe permanentpostof Agricultural Offi­ cerintheDepartmentof Agriculture isnullandvoidandofno legaleffect whatsoever, andthat ByrecourseNo.587/85 that: 5 ι 10 "Thedecision of therespondentCommissionpublishedin theofficial Gazette of theRepublic topromotetheinterested parties,
3. N. Papageorghiou,
4. M. Christoforides,
5. M. Ioannides- Archimandritou, 4.A. Aristidou and5.P. Kampa­ nellas,tothepermanentpostofAgriculture Officer A, DepartmentofAgriculture inthe Ministryof Agriculture and Natural Resources is nullandvoidandof nolegal effect whatsoever." The background tothese recourses, so far as relevant tothe presentproceedings is asfollows: 15 20 TherespondentCommissiononthe8thFebruary 1985, decidedtorevoke itsdecisiondated6thDecember1983for thepromo­ tion tothepost of Agricultural Officer A, as from the 15th De­ cember 1983 of A. Aristides, A. Iacovides, P.Kampanellas, N. Papageorghiou andM.Christoforides andits decision datedthe 24th March, 1984, for thepromotiontothepostof Agricultural Officer A, as from the 1st April 1984, of M. IoannidouArchimadritou,inviewof thefact thatwhenconsidering thecan­ didates for theaforesaid posts,itwas labouring undera miscon­ ceptionastothe actualqualifications ofoneof thecandidates. Therespondent Commission reconsidered thematterof the 25 filling of thepost atits meeting,of the 12thMarch, 1985,which was also attendedby Mr.Louca,Directorof theDepartmentof Agriculture as from the 1st August 1976, and Acting DirectorGeneralof theMinistry of Agriculture as from the 1stFebruary 1985,whorecommendedcandidatesPapageorghiou, Christofo30 rides andKampanellasfor threeof theposts andfor theremain­ ing two posts recommendedthattheselection bemadebetween Aristides, Archimadritou andMytilineos. 2521 A. Loizou P. Erodotou v. Republic

(1988)The respondent Commission examined the material factors from thefileofthefillingofthepost,thepersonalfilesandconfidentialreportsofthecandidatesaswellastheconclusionsofthe DepartmentalBoard,andtherecommendationsofMr.Loucaand concludedthatonthebasisoftheaboveandthecandidates'mer- 5 it,qualifications andseniority,thattheinterestedpartiesweresuperior to the others and the most suitable for promotion tothe postinquestion.Itthereforepromotedtheinterestedpartiesretrospectivelyasfromthedatesoftheoriginalpromotions,thatis,interestedpartiesAristidou,Ioannidou-Archimadritou,Kampanel- \Q las,Papageorghiou andChristoforides asfromthe6thDecember 1983andMytilineos asfrom the 1stApril 1984.Asaresult the applicantfiledthepresentrecourse. Itwascontendedonbehalfoftheapplicantthattherespondent Commissionfailed toinquireintothequalificationsofeachcandi- *dateandespeciallyintothequalifications oftheapplicant,which weresuperiortothoseoftheinterested parties,itwasactingthus underamisconceptionoffact.Furthermoreitwronglyconsidered thatcertaininterestedpartiespossessedthepostgraduatequalifica2 tionsrequiredbytheSchemeofService. " Asitisstatedinrelevant minutes,thefileofthefillingofthe postwasatallrelevanttimesbefore therespondentCommission, aswellasthepersonalfilesofallcandidates,includingthoseof the applicant and the interested parties, which contained, inter alia,thequalificationsofthepartiesandallthebackgroundtothe 2 * presentsubjudicedecision,thereforeitcannotbesaidthattherespondent Commission failed to conduct any inquiry into their qualifications sinceeverythingwasbefore them.Moreover,I find thatitwasreasonably opentotherespondent Commission,onthe material before it toconsider thatall theinterested partiespos- 30 sessedtherequiredqualifications andsatisfied therequirementof theSchemeofService astopostgraduatestudiesabroad.Itisnot disputedthattheapplicantindeedpossessedadegreeofMasterof Science in Agricultural Economics of the University of London,whereas someof theinterested partiespossessedonly aDi- 35 plomabuttheword "studies"intheSchemeofServicedoesnot 2522 3 C.L.R. 5 ' Erodotou v. Republic A. Loizou P. imposearequirementof adegreeof anykind,nordoesitplace thosecandidatespossessinghigherpostgraduatequalificationsin a moreadvantageous position than others,as thepossessionof moreorhigherqualifications thanthoserequiredbytheScheme ofServicedoesnotworktoacandidate'sadvantage.Thisground thereforefails. • Itmustalsobementionedatthisstagethatallinterestedparties wererecommendedforpromotionwhereastheapplicantwashot Secondlyitwascontendedon behalf oftheapplicantthatthe 10 subjudice decision lacks specialreasoning for disregarding the applicant's higherqualifications. Asalready statedabove,since all candidates possessed therequired qualifications, no special reasoningwasrequiredtobegivenasitisnotacaseofpreferring acandidate notpossessing suchqualifications toonepossessing 25 same. ItwasarguedthattheDepartmentalBoardwaswronglysetup bytheMinisterhimself,orhisDirector-General,contrarytothe provisions of section 36ofthePublic ServiceLaw, 1967,(Law No.33of 1967),whichconfers suchpowerupontheCouncilof 20 Ministers. 25 30 In accordance with Circular No.490 dated the 20th March, 1979,applicable asfrom the 1stJune 1979andapprovedbythe CouncilofMinistersandinparticularparagraph 1 thereof,aDepartmental Board may be set up consisting of the DirectorGeneraloftheMinistryconcernedortheDirectorofanIndependent Office or Service, who acts aschairman and who selects fourotherofficers toactasmembers.Therefore therewasnothingirregularorcontrarytolawinthisinstance. Thefinalground putforward on behalf of theapplicant and containedinthereply,isthattheconfidentialreportsofallparties contained alterationsbytheHeadofDepartment,Mr.Louca,as countersigning officer, which wereeffected without givingreasonsin the appropriate column in thereport,and asargued,on2523 A. LoizouP. Erodotou v.Republic

(1988)the authority of The Republicv. Argyrides,

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1092suchlackofreasoningmustrenderthereportssoalteredirregular. Fromaperusalof theconfidential reportsinquestion,which arebeforeme,thefollowingpictureappears: 5 Inrespectof theapplicant,for theyear 1982,items"output", "abilityoforalexpression","leadership"werereducedfrom"Excellent"to"VeryGood",theoverallratingofhisreportbecoming "VeryGood" from "Excellent".Noalterationsappearinrespect oftheyears1981and 1980inwhichheisratedas"Excellent". 10 Asregards interested party Papageorghiou he wasrated as "Excellent"for 1982inwhichyearno alterationsappear.Forthe year 1981 items"output","abilityofverbalexpression"were reducedfrom"Excellent" to"VeryGood"anditem"character"increasedfrom"VeryGood"to"Excellent"; andfortheyear 1980 15 items "output", "dedication toduty", "reliability", and"character"wereincreased to "Excellent"from"VeryGood"anditems "abilityoforalexpression"wasincreasedfrom"Good"to"Very Good"Theoverall rating, however, for bothyearsremained as "VeryGood". 20 InterestedpartyKampanellasfor alltheyears 1982,1981and 1980wasratedas "Excellent",however,item"intelligence"was increasedfrom"VeryGood"to"excellent"fortheyear

1. InterestedpartyChristoforides wasratedas"Excellent"forthe year 1982,inthereportfor whichitem"writtenexpression"was 25 reducedfrom"Excellent"to"VeryGood".Noalterationsappear intheyears 1981and 1980inwhichhewasratedas"Excellent" and"VeryGood" respectively. InterestedpartyArchimandritou wasratedas"Excellent"inall herreportsinwhichtherearenoalterations. InterestedpartyAristidouwasratedas"Excellent"forallthree 2524 30 3 C.L.R. Erodotouv.Republic A.Loizou P. years, 1982, 1981,
2. Inhisreportfor theyear 1982 the rat­ ingforitem"cooperation"wasreducedfrom"Excellent"to"Very Good". 5 10 15 Interested party Mytilineos was rated as "Excellent" for the year 1981 inwhich reportitems "ability of written expression" and"ability oforalexpression" werereducedfrom'Έχσβίίβηΐ" to Verygood". Noalterationsappearfor theyears 1981and1980in whichheisratedas"Excellent"and"VeryGood" respectively. Fromwhatis before me,thereis no indication thatthe countersigning officer did notdiscuss thematterpriortosuchaltera­ tions with thereportingofficer, thoughindeed nocommentsap­ pear in respect of such alterations in the appropriatecolumn. There is also no evidence for any disagreement between the countersigning andreportingofficers which would renderit necessaryandfor thecountersigning officer togivehisreasons for his own separateassessment. Authority onthisis tobefoundin thecaseofZyngas v.TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R.838 whereI hadthistosay atp.843:- 20 "Thereis norequirementfor such reasons tobegiven exceptonlyintheeventof therebeing adisagreement tothat ef­ fect between thecountersigning andthereportingofficers..." 25 Evenif suchfailure by thecountersigningofficer tofillinsuch columnmaybeconsideredasanirregualarity,nonethelessitmust first beconsideredof amaterialkindinordertoleadtotheannulmentof thesubjudice decision.Thismatterwas recentlyconsi­ deredinextensoby theFullBenchinthecaseof Sekkides v. The Republic

(1988)3C.L.R.2136 where thefollowing was stated atpp.2151-2152: 30 "Reference mustalsobemadetothecase ofCharalambos leridesv.TheRepublic

(1976)3C.L.R.9,affirmed,on appeal by theFullBench, thejudgmentreportedunderthesametitle in

(1980)3C.L.R. 165, wherethequestionof irregularitiesof formandtheireffect was consideredandheldthatonlyamate2525 A. Loizou P. Erodotou v. Republic

(1988)rialirregularity can lead totheannulment of therelevantadministrativeprocess.(SeealsoStassinopoulos,ontheLawof AdministrativeActs-1951pp. 229-230). In the light of the above authoritiesit must beconcluded that the 1979 Circular lays down rules of procedure which c must generally be followed when preparing confidential reports.Failure toobservesuchrulesinevitablyrendersany reportthuscompiled irregular,butatthesametimewefeelthat toholdthatsuchirregularity shouldatalltimesbeconsidered asleadingtotheannulmentofanydecisiontaken,irrespective *" ofwhetheritdidmateriallyaffect suchdecision,wouldbegoingtoofar.Nodoubtsuchirregularityamountstoanillegality inthebroad senseof theterm,thatisofbeingaviolationofa procedural legalprovisionandthisishowweunderstandArgyridescase(supra).Butbeingaviolationofprocedureithas 15 tobeshownthatitmateriallyaffected thedecisionreached.As regards theconclusion reached inArgyrides case (supra)respectingArticle28(l)weareoftheviewthatitcannotbeextricatedfromthefactsofthecase. Without doubtonemusttreatverycautiously whenconsi- 20 deringsuchreportsinordertoavoideventheslightestpossibility of abuseby thoseentrusted with thedutyofcompiling confidential reports.We believe that one must alwayslook first atthecircumstancesofthecaseinhandinordertoascertaintheextentoftheirregularityandtheeffect suchreporthad 25 onthesubjudicedecision." InthepresentcasesandinthecircumstancesIconsiderthatthe noncompletion bythecoutersigningofficer oftheappropriatecolumnofobservationsinnowayaffects theoutcomeofthesubjudicedecision. Intheresult andfor reasons statedabovetheserecourses fail andareherebydismissed withnoorderastocosts. Recoursesdismissed. Moorderastocosts. 2526 30