(1988)1988 February18 [LORIS,J.) INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION OTHON YIANGOULLIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS THROUGH THEPUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 540/86). Public Officers—Promotions—Merit—Confidential reportsandrecommendationsofHead ofDepartment—Significance of Public Officers—Promotions—Qualifications—Additionalacademicqualifications, not envisaged asanadvantage in theschemeofservice—Donot establishbythemselves acaseofstrikingsuperiority. 5 Public Officers—Promotions—Striking superiority. Reasoning ofadministartive act—Itmaybefound eitherinthedecisionitselfor intheofficialrecordsrelatedthereto. NaturalJustice—Bias—How established. Bymeansof thisrecoursetheapplicantchallenges thepromotion of the interested party tothepostof SeniorTown Planning Officer. 10 Theinterested party hadslightly betterconfidential reportsand wasrecommended for promotion by the Headof theDepartment;asregardsqualifications, they both possess more or less equal qualifications. It must, however,be noted that theapplicantcontended thatheholdsanadditional 15 academicqualification notpossessed bytheinterestedparty.The interested party was seniorby5yearstotheapplicant. 266 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Yiangoullis v. Republic Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Indecidingon themeritsof thecandidates,oneshould look atpastannualconfidential reports,but especially atthemostrecentones.Inthiscase,thedifference in meritinfavour of the interested partyemerging therefrom, isgreatly enhancedby therecommendations of theHead of theDepartment. Such recommendations wereconsistentwiththeoverall picturetranspiringfrom theadministrativerecords.
(2)Lack of impartiality by apublicofficer against another mustbeestablished with sufficient certainty,either by facts emerging from relevant administrativerecords orbysafe inferences tobedrawnfrom theexistence ofsuch facts. Inthiscasetheapplicant's vagueallegation ofbiasagainst the Headof theDepartment hasnotbeen substantiated.
(3)Additional academic qualifications tothoseprovided by the scheme of servicedonotindicatebythemselvesastriking superiority. 15
(4)Thus itisclear from theabove thattheapplicant singularly failed to establish acaseof strikingsuperiorityovertheinterested party. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Hadjiloannou v.TheRepublic
(1983)3CJUR.1041; ^ Georghiou v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.74; HadjiGregoriou v.TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.477; Jacovides v.TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R.212; Theodossiou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C.44; Republic v.Harris
(1985)3C.L.R.106; Constantinou v.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R. 551; 25 Christou v.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.437; Hadjisawa v. TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R.174. 267
(1988)Yiangoullis v. Republic Recourse. Recourse against thedecisionof therespondents topromote theinterestedpartytothePostofSeniorTownPlanning Officer inpreference andinsteadoftheapplicant A.S.Angelidesy for theapplicant. 5 L. Koursoumba (Mrs.),fortherespondent. Chr. TriantqfyHides,fortheinterestedparty. Cur. adv. vult, LORIS J. read the following judgment. The applicant by means of the present recourse challenges the decision of the , 0 respondentPublicServiceCommissiondated20.8:86published in the Official Gazette of theRepublicon 12.9.86,wherebythe interestedparty,namelyKyriacosDemetriadeswaspromotedto the post of Senior Town Planning Officer, as from 1.7.86,in preference toandinsteadoftheapplicant. Thecomplaintsof theapplicantmaybeconvenientlygrouped asfollows: (a) Failure of the Respondent P.S.C. to select the most suitablecandidateforthepostinquestion. (b)Failureof therespondent tocarryoutdueinquiry,which 20 resultedtoamisconceptionastomaterialfacts. (c)TherecommendationoftheinterestedpartybytheHeadof the Department was inconsistent with I. P's merit and qualifications andwastheresultofbiasand/orlackofimpartiality onbehalfoftheOfficer concernedagainsttheapplicant. 25 (d)Lackofduereasoning. 268 3 C.L.R. Yiangoullisv.Republic LorisJ. In thecase of Ηjloannou v. TheRepublic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041atp. 1045theFullBenchofthisCourtreiterated that: 10 15 20 "It is asettledprincipleof administrative law thatwhenan organ,such asthePublicService Commission,selects a can didateonthebasisof comparison with others,itis not neces sary to show, in order tojustify his selection, that he was strikingly superiortotheothers.Ontheotherhand,an admin istrative Court cannotintervene inordertoset aside the deci sionregarding suchselection unlessitis satisfied,by an appli cantina recoursebefore it,thathewas aneligible candidate who was strikingly superior totheonewhowas selected be causeonlyinsuch acase theorgan which hasmadetheselec tionfor thepurposeof anappointmentorpromotionisdeemed tohaveexceeded theouterlimitsof itsdiscretion and, there fore, tohave acted in excess or abuse of its powers; alsoin suchasituation thecomplainedof decision of theorgan con cernedis toberegardedaseitherlacking duereasoning oras based onunlawful orerroneousorotherwise invalid reasoning -{Odysseas Georghiou v.Republic,
(1976)3C.L.R.74,atp. 83)." In the instant case the respondent P.S.C. after hearing the recommendations of theHeadof theDepartment proceededto evaluate and compare all the candidates on the basis of the established criteria anddecided topromotetheinterested party adoptingtherecommendationsof theHead of theDepartment in thisrespect Letusexamine now themerit,qualifications andseniority of the applicant and theinterested party as they emerge from the materialbefore me,whichwas also before therespondentP.S.C. Themeritof theapplicantasitemerges from theconfidential reports of the last five years is as follows: Very good for the years 1981 and 1982;excellent for theyears 1983 (9-3-0) 1984 (10-2-0) and 1985 (11-1-0). 269 Loris J. Yiangoullis v. Republic
(1988)The merit of the interested party, likewise emerging for the same period, is: very good for the the years 1981 and 1982; excellentfor theyears 1983(8-4-0) 1984(10-2-0)and 1985 (120-0). InHadjiGregoriouv.TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.477atp. 5 483theFullBenchof thisCourtheld that:"...itisnecessary,in deciding on themeritsof thecandidates,tolook atpast annual confidential reports, and especially at the most recent ones,in ordertoevaluate theperformance of thecandidatesduringtheir careersasawhole". 10 InOdysseas Georghiou v.TheRepublic
(1976)3C.L.R.74 at p.82 the learned President of this Court stated inter alia the following: "... and the importance of the more recent of such reportshasbeen,also,recognised inJacovidesv. TheRepublic,
(1966)3 C.L.R. 212, 221,and may be derived too from the 1 5 provisionsofparagraphs (c)and(d)of subsection
(1)ofsection 44ofLaw33/67." Inthisconnectionitmustbenotedthatwhilsttheapplicantas well as the interested party arerated "excellent" for the last 2 yearstheirratingfor 1984isidentical(10-2-0)whilsttheirrating 20 for 1985isnot identical, but thatof theinterested party iseven slightlybetter(12-0-0)thanthatoftheapplicant(11-1-0). Thedifference inmerithoweverslightitmayemergefromthe confidential reports in favour of theinterested party, isgreatly enhancedbytherecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartment, 25 whichshouldbegivendueregard bytheP.S.C.asenvisagedby s. 44
(3)of Law 33/67 and which constitute a most vital consideration whichcannotbelightlydisregarded (Theodossiou v. TheRepublic,2R.S.C.C.44). Thereasonisclearly statedbytheFullBenchofthisCourtin 30 theRepublicv.Haris
(1985)3C.L.R.106atp. I l l : "TheHead oftheDepartmentisinapositiontoappreciatethedemandsofthe posttobefilled andthesuitabilityofthecandidatestodischarge 270 3 C.L.R. Yiangoullis v. Republic theduties of thepost 5 10 15 20 25 30 Loris J. " In the instant case the recommendationof the Head of the Department, as reproduced in the sub-jucide decision reads: "Havinginmindthethreecriteriaasawhole,merit, qualifications and seniority heconsiders thatthemost suitable for thepost is Kyriakos Demetriades"(theinterestedparty). Examiningtheconfidential reportsandthepersonalfileofthe applicant and the interested party I hold the view that the recommendations of the Head of the Departmentwere quite consistent with the overall picture transpiring from the confidential reports andtherelevant administrativefiles,as we have seen above,inrespectof meritandasitwillappearlateron inthepresentjudgmentinrespectofqualifications andseniority. AndinthisconnectionI mayaswelladdherethat,thefactthat theHeadof theDepartment did notcommentonall candidates does not affect the weight of his recommendation (vide Constantinou v.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.551 atp. 561). Nowasregards thevagueallegation of theapplicantimputing lack of impartiality orbiastotheHeadof theDepartment, Ishall confinemyself inreiteratingwhatwas statedby theFullBench of this Courtin Christou v. The Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 437 at p.449:"Thelackof impartiality bypublicofficer Aagainstpublic officer Βmustbeestablished with sufficient certainty,eitherby facts emerging from relevant administrative records or by safe inferences tobedrawnfrom theexistence of such facts." Inthecase underconsideration therewas notan iota in the relevantrecordspointingtolackof impartiality orbiasandI could noteventraceasuccinctallegation tothatend. Concluding on theissue of merit Irepeat: Merit transpiring from theconfidential reportsindicatesnotonlyequality between applicantandtheinterestedpartybutevenslightsuperiority ofthe interestedpartyovertheapplicantatleastfor thelastyear
(1985). 271 LorisJ. Yiangoullis v.Republic
(1988)And this superiority of the interested party in merit is as already stated above, enhanced by the recommendation of the Headof theDepartment inhis favour. Turningnow to qualifications: It was forcefully argued by learned counsel for the applicant 5 that the applicant possesses two post-graduate qualifications in contrast with the one possessed by the interested party. I have noted in the administrative file a series of other qualifications possessed by the interested party; after examining the qualifications of the applicant and thoseof theinterested party I 10 would dare say that they both possess more or less equal qualifications. But even assuming that the applicant possesses 2 post-graduatequalifications incontrast with theonepossessed by the interested party, such aqualification is not specified by the Scheme of Service as an advantage; and it is well settled that 15 "Additional academic qualifications to those provided by the scheme of service do not indicate by themselves a striking superiority" (vide Hjiloannou v. The Republic - supra - at pp 1046- 1047). As regards seniority it is abundantly clear from the 20 administrativefilethat theinterested partyhasaseniorityofabout 5 years over theapplicant, thelatterhavingbeenpromoted tothe permanent post of Town Planning Officer Class I on 15.5,78 whilst the interested party was holding the same post as from 1.8.1973. Thus it is clear from the above that the applicant singularly failed toestablish acaseof striking superiorityovertheinterested party. On thecontrary itwasproved thattheinterested party was superior in merit whereas on the question of qualifications the applicant and the interested partyaremoreorlessequal; andwe should not loose sight of the fact that the interested party has a substantial seniority, ofabout5years,overthe applicant. Before concluding I am duty bound to refer briefly to 272 ^ 25 3 C.L.R. Yiangoullis v. Republic Loris J. reasoning,onceraised by theapplicant.Itis well settled that the reasoningbehindanadministrativedecision maybefoundeither in the decision itself or in the official records related thereto (HadjiSavva v.The Republic
(1972)3C.L.R. 174,205). 5 η Intheinstantcase Iholdtheview thatthereasoning appears sufficiently inthedecision itself andcanalso,find supportfrom thematerialcontained intherelevantadministrative files. In the result present recourse fails and is accordingly dismissed;noorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderas to costs. 273