(1988)1988December22 [PIKIS,S] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION EUASTSANGAROGLOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo.582/87). ~"PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Circular491179fortheir preparation, Reg.9—Breach of—Whetherandin what circumstances leadstoannulmentofthefinalactofpromotion. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable. Public Officers—Promotions—Head of Department—Recommentations— 5 Departureongroundsofothercandidates'superiorityinmeritandseniority—Justified. 'the applicantsubmittedthatthesubjudicepromotionmustbeannulled forlackofdueinquiry. Duringthejudicialinquiry,itwasrevealedthattheconfidentialreports of theapplicant and the interested party for 1985wereamended bythe countersigning officer in breach of Reg. 9 of the aforesaid circular by downgradingbothofthemintwoitemsfrom "excellent"to"verygood". Finally,itmustbenotedthattheHeadof theDepartmenthadrecommendedacandidate,whoisnotapartytotheseproceedings. Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Thecandidaterecommendedbythe Headof theDepartmentran thirdinmeritandwasthelessseniorof the 2570 10 15 3 C.L.R. Tsangaroglou v. Republic threecandidates.There was,therefore, sufficient justification todepart from hisviews. 5 10 2)TheCommissiondulynotedapplicant'sseniorityandtheinterested party'slightedgeinmeritThesubmission forlackofdueinquiryhasnot beensubstantiated ThedecisionwasreasonablyopentotheCommission. 3)Illegalityinthepreparationoftheconfidential reportsdoesnotautomaticallyleadtoannulmentofthefinalactofpromotion.Itleadstosucha result,whenthereportinquestionconstitutedamaterialconsiderationfor thepromotion.Tohavethateffect itmustresulttomaterialmisconception offact. Inthesecases,thechanges left unaffected thegeneralpictureof meritofthecandidates. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 15 Sekladesv.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R. 2136; Papatryfonosv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.1882. Recourse. 20 Recourseagainst thedecisionof therespondent topromote the interestedpartytothepostofChiefForeman inpreference andinsteadoftheapplicant · Ph. Valiantis,forthe applicant. L. Koursoumba (Mrs.), for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. Elias Tsangaroglou, .. theapplicant, AndreasConstantinides,theinterested party,anda third party, namely, Christos Triteos, were the three candidates short listed by the Departmental Committee (set upunder s. 36, Law 33/67)forpromotiontothevacantpostofChiefForeman in 2571 PikisJ. Tsangaroglou v. Republic
(1988)the Department of Public Works.Allthree held thepositionof AssistantChiefForemanthatqualified themforpromotiontothe postofChiefForeman,onestepinthehierarchicalladder. InthereportoftheDepartmentalCommittee,inadditiontolistingtherecommendedcandidatesinalphabeticalorder,reference 5 ismadetotheirseniority,qualifications andthegeneraleffectof theirconfidential reports.Beforeembarkingontheprocessofselection,theP.S.C.invitedtheviewsofMr.MichaelChristodoulides,theDirectoroftheDepartmentofPublicWorks.HerecommendedMr.Triteosforpromotion.Afterdueconsiderationofthe JQ servicerecordandconfidential reportsbearingonthecandidates, therespondents chose the interested party asthemost suitable candidateandonthataccountpromotedhimtothepostofChief Foreman. Theapplicantchallengesthedecisionasinvalidforlackduein- 15 quiry into thefacts defining thesuitability of thecandidates for promotion,particularlythoseaffecting theapplicant Specifically, theycomplainoffailureonthepartoftherespondentstoappraise correctly thecontent of theirconfidential reports,the qualificationsofthecandidatesorevaluateinperspectivethefactorofsen- 20 iority.Examination of thesubjudicedecisionandthereasoning accompanyingit,doesnotbearoutanyoftheabovecomplaints. Onthecontrary,theinevitableinferenceisthatrespondentsmade athoroughinquiryanddulyacquaintedthemselvesoftherelevant facts andaddressedeveryconsideration thatshouldguidethemin theexerciseoftheirdiscretionwithaviewtoselectingthecandidatebestsuitedforpromotion. Firsttheyconsidered theconfidential reportsonthepartiesa principalguidetotheidentification ofthemeritsofthecandidates andsequential suitabilityforpromotion;andbywayofexample . theyreferred totheoveralleffect oftheirconfidential reportsfor thefiveyearsimmediatelyprecedingthesubjudicedecision.The pictureconveyedtherebywas,asnotedintheirminutes,indicativeoftheoverallperformance of thecandidatesintheservice. Naturally,reportsforrecentyearsareapttogiveanup-to-dateac- 35 2572 3C.L.R. 5 10 ^ 25 30 35 Tsangaroglou v.Republic PikisJ. count of the"performance of a candidate. Acomparison of the confidential reportsonthecandidatesrevealsthat theinterested partyhadaslightedgeovertheapplicant,afactdulynotedinthe reportoftheDepartmental Committee too.Theexerciseledthe P.S.C.toconcludethatthecandidaterecommendedbytheHead of theDepartment ran third in termsof merit asdefined inthe confidential reports.Thisconclusion,coupled with thefact that ChristosTriteoswastheleast seniorof thethreecandidates, offered, asnotedinthedecision,sufficientjustification fordeparting from therecommendations of theHead of the Department. Contrary tothesubmission madeonbehalf oftheapplicant,the P.S.C.addressed specifically thequestionof seniorityandnoted thattheapplicantwasthemostseniorofthethreecandidates.As canbededucedfromtheirdecision,theychosetheinterestedpartymainlyonaccountoftheconfidential reportscomparedtothose oftheremainingtwocandidates. TheP.S.C.is the body charged, under the Constitution and thePublicServiceLaw,tomakeappointmentsandpromotionsin thepublicservice.Theyarethevesteesofthediscretionarypower reposed inthembytheConstitutionandthelaw.Theirchoicewill be sustained solong asit wasonereasonably open to themon consideration of thefacts relevant totheirdecision.Inthiscase theselectionwasattheleastreasonablyopentothem.Normally thejudicialinquirywouldhaveendedhere.Nonthelessitcannot thusbeconcludedbecauseofafactthatemergedinthecourseof judicialinquiryaffecting theconfidentialreportsontheapplicant andtheinterestedpartyfor theyear 1985.Thecounter-signing officer madealterationstothereportsofbothcandidateswithout adhering to the procedure prescribed by Reg.9 of the circular (madein 1979)regulatingthepreparationofconfidential reports. Hedown-gradedeachofthetwocandidatesontwoitems,reducing theirrating from "excellent" to "very good" without prior consultation withthereportingofficer andwithoutrecordinghis reasonsfortherevisionoftheirrating.However,theinterference left unaffected theoverallratingofbothcandidatesfortheyear 1985.TTiegradingofeachonefortheyear1985was"excellent", eachhavingscoredaratingof"excellent"oneightsubjectsanda 2573 PikisJ. Tsangaroglouv.Republic
(1988)scoreof"verygood"ontheremainingfouritemsofassessment. The implications stemming from breach of Reg.9 were the subject ofexamination anddiscussionin numerousdecisionsof the Supreme Court.Thecaselawwasreviewed inarecentdecision of theFull Bench -Sekkides v.Republic
(1988)3C.L.R. 5 2136 that offers authoritative guidance on the implications of breachofthecircular,Reg.9inparticular. ThecircularisinparimateriawithregulatoryenactmentsstipulatingthelegalregimewithinwhichtheAdministrationmustoperate inevaluating theperformance ofpublic servants.Itestab- 10 lishes the legal framework for the asessment of the serviceof members of thepublic service.Every departure from itsprovisions constitutes an irregularity, the effects of which must be pondered first with regard tothereport itself andthen withrespecttothesubjudicedecision.Atissueisthevalidityofthesub J5 judicedecision andnot thevalidityof theconfidential reportas such .Whatwemustexamineistheeffect of theirregularityon theconfidentialreportsthemselvesandsecondlythefailureonthe partoftheP.S.C.tonoticetheirregularity andexamineitinthe contextofthedecisionmakingprocess.InPapatryphonosv.Re- «0 public
(1987)3C.L.R. 1882referredtoinSekkides(supra),it wasdecidedthatconsideration bytheP.S.C.ofaconfidentialreportfraughtwithillegality inthesenseofReg.9,doesnotautomaticallyinvalidatethedecisionoftheappointingbody.Tojustify the annulment of the decision, the report tainted by the irregularitymusthaveconstitutedamaterialconsiderationforthe decision.Noteveryirregularityintheselectionprocesshasaninvalidatingeffect onthedecisiontaken.Tohavethateffect itmust resultinmaterialmisconceptionofthefactsofthecase.Applying theabovetothefactsofourcase,wemaynotethefollowing:30 (a)Strippedontheimpermissiblechangesmadetotheconfidentialreportsoftheapplicantandtheinterestedpartyforthe year 1985,theposition withregard totheirrating wouldremainunchanged. 2574 3C.L.R. Tsangaroglou v.Republic PikisJ. (b)Disregardof thereportsfor theyear 1985for bothcandidates would similarly leaveunchanged the general effect of theirconfidentialreports. Inthelightoftheabove,Iamdriventotheconclusionthatthe 5 irregularcoursefollowedbythecountersigningofficer inthesubmissionoftheconfidential reportsforthetwocandidatesforthe year 1985didnotresultinamaterial misconceptionofthefacts relevanttothemeritsofthepartiesasdisclosedintheirconfidentialreports. 10 Hence therecourseisdismissed.The subjudicedecision,is confirmed pursuanttotheprovisionsofpara.4(a)ofArt.146. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 2575