clr/1988/1988_3_2527.pdf

(1988)wasnever suchacycleofeducation and thatnosuchexaminationswere everheld HavingconcludedthatasregardsthisissuetheCommissionconductedaninquiry indepth,theCourtdecidedthattheredoesnotexistany foundation for theallegedmisconceptionoffact.Therecoursewasfinally dismissed. Recoursedismissed. 5 Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: loannidesv.TheRepublic

(1972)3C.L.R. 318; MallourosandAnotherv. TheElectricityAuthorityofCyprusandAnother 10

(1974)3CLR. 220; Christodoulou v.C.Y.TA

(1978)3C.L.R. 61; Fourniav.TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R.262; Skarosv.TheRepublic

(1986)3 C.L.R.2109; Christofidesv. TheRepublic

(1966)3C.L.R.732; 15 Iordanouv.TheRepublic

(1967)3C.L.R.245; Mikellidou v.TheRepublic

(1981)3C.L.R.461; Skapoullisv.TheRepublic

(1984)3C.L.R, 554; Tasmiv.TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R. 782. Recourse. 20 Recourse against the decision of the respondents to promote the interested party to the post of Senior Radiographer (Radiodiagnostic) in the Medical Services and Public Health Services in preference and instead of the applicant. 2528 3 C.L.R. Kalaidjis v. Republic AS. Angelides, for theapplicant. A. Papasavvas, SeniorCounsel of theRepublic, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. 5 A.LOIZOUP.readthefollowingjudgment ThepostofSeniorRadiographer(Radiodiagnostic),isapromotionpostfromthat ofRadiographerFirstGrade(Radiodiagnostic). Under therelevant Schemeof Service,which wasapproved bytheCouncilofMinistersbyDecisionNo.25.290,dated22nd 10 December1984, therequiredqualificationsare: "(a)AtleastfiveyearsserviceinthepostofRadiographer, FirstGrade,and (b) Organising and administrative ability, initiative,responsibilityandsoundnessofjudgment." ^ 20 Anotetheretoprovidesthat "duringthefirst five years after theapprovalofthepresentSchemeofService,iftherearenocandidates with five years of servicein thepostof Radiographer FirstGrade,theremaybepromotedalsoofficers withatotalserviceof tenyearsin thepostofRadiographer First andSecond Grade, or in the post of Rediographer First and Second Grade and the prior post of Radiographer and/or Assistant Radiographer." ADepartmental Boardwassetuponthebasisof Regulatory OrdersgoverningthecompetenceandmethodofoperationofDe25 partmental Boards in accordance with Section 36of thePublic ServiceLaws, 1967-1986.Through itsChairmanitsubmittedto therespondentCommissionitsreport(Appendix4)inwhichafter examiningalistofthirty-fourcandidatesoutofwhichitexcluded fifteen asnotpossessing therequired qualifications, itselectee* 30 fourcandidatesforselectionforpromotion,amongwhomtheapplicantandtheinterestedparty. 2529 A.Loizou P. Kalaidjis v.Republic

(1988)TherespondentCommissionatitsmeetingofthe27thJanuary 1987,tooknoteoftheconclusionsoftheDepartmentalBoardand alsoofaletterdated 19thDecember 1986,ofanumberof"qualified" Radiographers as they describe themselves in contradistinctiontotherestoftheircolleagues,addressedtotheMinis- 5 terofHealthandofaletterdatedthe20thJanuary 1987,fromthe SeniorSpecialistRadiologist,regardingthequalificationsofother officers anddecidedthattherewasnothingtopreventthemtobe considered ascandidates.Therelevant minuteoftherespondent Commissionofthesaid meetingisAppendix

1. ,« The respondent Commission, after holding another meeting with which weare not directly concerned, atitsmeetingof the 28thAugust 1987,heardtherecommendationsoftheDirectorof Medical Services and Services of Public Health, and after he withdrewitstarteditsdeliberationswiththeevaluationandcom- -^ parisonofthecandidates.Initsrelevantminutes(Appendix8)it concluded that "havingexaminedthematerialelementsfrom the file ofthefilling ofthePost,aswellasthepersonalfilesandthe confidential reportsofthecandidates,havingtakenintoconsiderationtheconclusionsoftheDepartmentalBoard,andtherecommendationsof theHeadoftheDepartment,decidedonthebasis of theestablishedcriteria intheirtotality (merits,qualifications, seniority)thatAgniMogasterwassuperiortoallothercandidates anddecidedtopromoteherasthemostsuitabletothePermanent (OrdinaryBudget)postofSeniorRadiographer(Radiodiagnostic) 25 MedicalServicesandServicesofPublicHealth,asfrom the15th September1987." Theapplicant wasbom onthe 13rdNovember 1946.Hewas first appointedintheGovernmentServiceasanAssistantRadiographer on the 1st April 1974.He waspromoted tothepost of 30 Radiographer(Radiodiagnostic)onthe1stApril 1980andtopost of RadiographerFirstGrade(Radiodiagnostic)onthe 15thJune,
2. Theinterested party was born on the 15th December
3. Shewasfirst appointedintheGovernmentserviceasanAssistant 35 2530 3 C.L.R. Κalaidjis v.Republic A.LoizouP. Radiographeronthe9thOctober 1961.Almost thirteenyearsear­ lierthanthe applicant.ShebecameRadiographer(Radiodiagnos­ tic) onthe1stJanuary 1977,andpromoted tothepostofRadiog­ rapherFirstGrade,Radiodiagnostic,onthe15thJune,
4. 5 10 15 20 Theinterested party therefore, is in accordancewith Section 46

(2)of thePublicService Laws, seniortotheapplicant accord­ ing tothe officers previous seniority. TheinterestedpartyattendedtheAthenaidionGymnasiumof Limassol (nocertificate) during theyears 1942-1948, she hasa certificate of athreeyear traininginthe theoryofpracticalimple­ mentationof Radiography andpassed the prescribedexamination heldattheNicosiaGeneralHospitalinDecember

1. Theapplicantgraduatedfromthe PancyprianGymnasiumfor Boysin 1965-
2. HeattendedtheGlasgow Schoolof Radiography during theyears 1969-1972.Hehasanimpressive listof qualifications which heobtainedinEnglandandduring various coursesheattended. TherespondentCommissionreferred tothe confidential reports of thecandidates and indicatively made, a comparisonof theircontentsasregards ashortlistof sevencandidates,amongwhom theapplicantandtheinterestedparty, for the last threeyears during which theapplicantis graded as fol­ lows: 1984 Έ " (7-2-0-3- ΔΕ) 1985 Έ " (9-2-0-1ΔΕ) 25 1986"B" (10-1^0-1 ΔΕ) Whereas the interestedparty'sratingisfor theyears: 1984 Έ " (11-1-0) 1985Έ " (12-0-0) 1986Έ" (8-4-0) 2531 A.Loizou P. Kalaidjis v.Republic

(1988)Thiscomparison asfar asthepartiestotheseproceedingsare concernedandindeedasfarastherestofthecandidates,present theinterestedpartyaspossessinghighermerit. Themaingroundoflawreliedupononbehalfoftheapplicant turnsonthecertificate of athreeyeartraining in theTheoryof 5 Practical Implementation of Radiography, which the interested party and several of her colleagues obtained after passing successfully theprescribedexaminationsheldattheNicosiaGeneral Hospital(inthecaseoftheapplicantinDecember1974). The argument advanced istwofold, first that therespondent 10 Commission did not carryoutaproper inquiry intothecircumstancesunderwhich thesaidcertificate wasobtainedandinparticular theextentofthetrainingandthelecturesgiventoitsholders,and secondly thattherespondent Commission actedundera misconception offact inasmuchasitisallegedonbehalfofthe 15 applicant,therehasbeenneitherathreeyearattendance,norwere thereheldanyexaminations. In support of the aforesaid propositions I wasreferred toa passage from Spyliotopoullos, ManualonAdministrative Law SecondEdition,p.419totheeffect thatthereexistsmisconcep- 20 tion offactwhenthereisprovedtheobjectivenonexistenceofthe factual orlegalsituationswhichweretakenintoconsiderationby theadministrativeorganfor theapplicationofanimpersonalrule of lawprovidingfor theissueoftheact,thatistosay,whenitis provedthattheadministrativeorganmistakenlytookitthatthere 95 exists thelawful prerequisite.Infurther supportof the aforesaid contention Iwasreferred tothecasesoiloannidesv.TheRepublic

(1972)3C.L.R.318;MallourosandAnotherv.TheElectricity Authorityof CyprusandAnother

(1974)3C.L.R.220atp. 224;Christodoulou v. C.Y.TA.

(1978)3C.L.R.61; Fournia v. 3° TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R.262,atp.279. Asregardsfailure tocarryoutadueinquirywiththeresultof actinginignoranceof theessentialandmaterialfacts andsucha situation amounting to a misconception of fact, reference was 2532 3 C.L.R. 5 Kalaidjis v. Republic A.LoizouP. made to the cases of Skaros v. TheRepublic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 2109; Christofides v.TheRepublic

(1966)3C.L.R.732; Iordanouv. TheRepublic

(1967)3 C.L.R.245;loannides v. TheRe­ public

(1972)3C.L.R,318;Mikellidou v. The Republic

(1981)3 C.L.R.461;Skapoullisv. The Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R.

1. TheCertificatepossessedbytheinterestedparty whichwas is-"' sued by the Ministry of Healthon the 1st March, 1975, duly signed andsealed by theDirector-Generalof theMinistryand the Specialist Radiologistof theMedicalServices atthetime,red21, JO readsasfollows: ' · . : . " ' · u 'This is tocertify thatAgniMogasterattendedathreeyear cycleofeducationinthe'theoryand thepractical application iof Radiography andsucceeded intheprescribed examina­ tions which were held in the-NicosiaGeneralHospital on the18thDecember1974;" ι r • :' ' , . · ' « , · : : > ' ·- ·- . '• . :•;•··.'. - ' Inafoot-notetotheCertificate iws'stated that:-" "Theabove cycle of education was organised for the pupposes of the Schemeof-Service for*thepost of Radiogra­ pher." •-·' t · ' 1 ' ·*' "* f-I'Vi--' V.'j 20 25 That Certificate was'attached toth'e'application of the applicant for appointmenttothepostofRadiographer,1submittedonthe 8th July 1976 anditwas inthelight of thatqualification thatthe in­ terested party-was*selec'tedTfof promotion among twelvecandi­ datestothepermanentpdstof Radiographerwitheffect from 1st January
2. -• -: :. ^t .•· *-' · .... After thechangeof thetitlein 1984, theinterestedparty'and thirty-five otherRadiographers,SecondGradewerepromoted on the25thJanuary 1985 tothecombinedpostofRadiographerFirst Gradeaspossessingthequalifications of thatpost. • ' •**- '^ " 30 Thequestion of the significance of the said certificate was raised with theMinisterofHealth by anumberof Radiographers 2533 A. Loizou P. Kalaidjis v. Republic

(1988)describingthemselvesasthe"qualified"ones,inwhichtheycomplainedthatthequalificationspossessedbyseveralotherRadiographersdonotcorrespondtotherealityastherenever functioned a schoolofRadiographersinCyprusandtherewasneveranyreal three-year training in Cyprus in this branch. The said letter is 5 marked ashavingbeenreceivedbytherespondent Commission onthe20thJanuary 1987,togetherwithaletteroftheothergroup of Radiographers and a letter by threerepresentativesof those "qualified" oneswhich togetherwith aletterof theSeniorSpecialistRadiologist,Dr.Peratitis,werereceivedbythe respondent ,, CommissioninJanuary 1987andwerebefore it ItmayalsobementionedthatduringthemeetingoftheDepartmental BoardthemembersofwhichweretheDirectorofMedical Services as Chairman, the Senior Specialist, Radiologist, as a member,andinadditiontootheradministrativeofficers, twoIn- . spectorsRadiographers asmembersnamelyMr.M.Taliotisand Mrs.G.Koumenidou,Mr.Taliotiswhoseemstobetheleaderof the"qualified" groupandalsooneoftheaffiants ofthethree affidavitsfiledinthisrecourse,tomymindunnecessarily,madethe following statementwhichwasrecordedinthereportoftheDe- 2 partmentalBoard,(Appendix4).It reads:"Thememberof theDepartmental Board Mr.M.Taliotis wishestohavethefollowing recorded. 'OnaccountofthetechnologicalprogressinthefieldofRadiology Units,which areplaced in our hospitals and the complicated Radiological examinations, I believe that weightmustbegiventotheacademicqualifications ofthe candidates.'" NeedlesstosaythattheinterestedpartyaswellastheappplicantwereamongthosefoundbytheDepartmentalBoardtopos- ~ sessthequalificationsrequiredbytherelevantSchemeofService andtheywerealsoamongthefour recommendedforpromotion inalphabeticalorder,byiL 2534 3 CX.R. 5 10 ,r Kalaidjis v.Republic A. LoizouP. MoreovertherespondentCommissionexamined thequestion of qualifications atits meetingof the27thJanuary 1987,whenit hadbefore itthereportof theDepartmentalBoardandexamined thequestion of qualifications andtook noteof thelettersof the qualified Radiographers,dated.the19thDecember1986, aswell astheletterdated20thJanuary 1987,oftheSeniorSpecialistRa­ diologistregarding thequalifications ofotherofficers anddecided thatthere was nothingpreventing themfrombeingconsideredas candidates, Thequestionthereforeofthequalification oftheinterestedpar­ ry,aswellasthesignificance andlegaleffect of thecertificatein questionwhich was acteduponbytheCommissionon.a.previous occassion andwhich was.the subject of criticismby thisgroupof officers, was duly inquired into extensively and in depth,and theredoes notinmyviewexistanyfoundation for theclaims.of theapplicantonthisgroundaswell asonthegroundofmiscon­ ceptionof fact raised inconjunction with thiscertificate. Refer­ encemay bemadetothecaseofConstantinou andothersv. The Republic

(1966)3C.h.R:,U2sitp.^69./ ,","/.. ^Λ Thereremains now toexamine whether thedecision istduly reasonedinviewof thetextof theminutesinwhich accordingto counsel.there.were conflicting opinionsastothefacts of thecase andthere was,failure torecordthereasonsforrejectingthe oneof suchopinions. ?.·.·-,. ye In supportof thispropositionI was referred tothecaseofTas* mi v.,TheRepublic.,{\9%%) 3 C.L.R. 782 atp.788 where Isaid thefollowing: «Λ "Inview of theabove statementof thelaw thesubjudice decision is notreasoned because it was reached whilst two conflicting opinionswereinexistence andthere was failure to record thereasons for rejecting oneof such opinions (vide ConslusionsfromtheJurisprudenceof theGreekCouncilof State (supra))". 2535 A.LoizouP. Kalaidjis v. Republic

(1988)Withoutdisagreeing withtheabovepassagewhichwasdecidedonthebasisofthefactsandcircumstancesofthatcase,I find thattheprinciplehereinabovesetoutdoesnotapplytothefactsof thepresentcase,whereasIsaid,therehasbeenaproperinquiry into the issues raised in relation to the certificate and a pro- 5 nouncementwasmadeunanimously,bytherespondentCommissionobviouslyinfavourofacceptingthesaidcertificateinallits effect, and clearly rejecting the contentions of the "qualified" groupofRadiographers. Inconclusion Iwouldliketosaythatonthetotalityofthecir- JQ cumstancesbeforetheCommissionitwasreasonablyopentoitto arriveattheconclusionitdid.Therelevantminute,Imustsay,is adetailedoneitsmeetingofthe28thAugust 1987,atwhichthe subjudicedecisionwastaken.Appendix8,bearsoutthattherespondent Commission exercised itsdiscretion properly,itduly ,e reasoneditsdecision andtooknote,inadditiontoallothermattersthehighconfidential reports,thefactthatsheistheseniorof all candidates, superior to them anddecided topromote herto permanent postin question,andIfindnoreason whatsoever to interfere withthesubjudicedecision. ^0 Foralltheabovereasonstherecourseisdismissed,thesubjudicedecisionisconfirmed butinthecircumstancestherewillbe noorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. ^5 2536