(1988)1988February 26 [LOWS, J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION EUASELIADESANDANOTHER, Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CasesNos. 586/84387/84). Public Officers—Appointments/Promotions—First entry andpromotion post—Purposeofcreatingsuchapost—Mostsuitablecandidateshouldbe selected—Thisprinciple cannotbeoverriden bypreferencefor those alreadyintheservice. PublicOfficers—Appointments/Promotions—Interviews, performance at— 5 Weight. Public Officers—Appointments/Promotions—Written examinations required byschemeofservice—Significanceof,inevaluatingmerit. PublicOfficers—Appointments/Promotions—Strikingsuperiority. Public Officers—Appointments/Promotions—High office in hierarchy— 10 Discretionofadministration—Breadthof. Applicantsimpugnedthedecision,wherebytheinterestedpartieswere appointedand/orpromoted tothepostof AdministrativeOfficer, General AdministrativeStaff,afirstentryandpromotionpost. Itissignificant tonotethatsub-paragraph
(4)ofparagraph3(required qualifications)oftheaforesaid advertisementprovidesthat 310 15 3 C.L.R. Eliades & Another v. Republic "
(4)Candidatesmustbesuccessful inaspecialexamination inwriting, forthispost". Themaincomplaintoftheapplicantsintheaboveintituledrecoursesis totheeffect thattherespondentP.S.C.attributed undueweighttotheimpressionscreatedbythecandidatesattheinterviews. 5 10 Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Theobjectofourlawincreatingthe categoryoffirstentryandpromotionpostsistoattractcandidatesfromoutsidetheserviceandatthesametimegivetheopportunityforpromotionto suitablepersonsalreadyintheservice.Theprinciplethatthethemostsuitablecandidatehastobeselectedcannotbeoverridenbypreferenceforthose alreadyintheservice. 15
(2)Itiswellsettledthatimpressionscreatedbycandidatesattheinterviewsshouldnotbegivenundueanddisproportionateweight.Inthiscase theCommissiondidnotattributeundueweighttotheimpressionscreated bythecandidatesattheinterviews. 20
(3)TheprinciplethattheCommissionshouldalsotakeintoaccountthe impressioncreatedbytheperformanceofthecandidatesattheinterviewappliesafortioriincaseslikethepresentone,wherethereisnoothermaterial oralmostnoothermaterialtorelyon,forevaluatingthemeritofthecandidateinquestion;andonemustnotlosesightofthefact thatmostoftheinterestedpartieswere"outsiders"and theirmerithadmostlytobededuced from theirperformanceattheinterview,andpartlyfromtheresultoftheexaminationinwritingenvisagedbytheschemeofservice.
(4)Theapplicantsfailedtoestablishacaseofstrikingsuperiority. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: TheRepublicandAnotherv,Aristotelous
(1982)3C.L.R.497; Smyrniosv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.124; Andreouv. TheRepublic
(1979)3C.L.R. 379; Theodossiou v.TheRepublic,2R.S.C.C. 44; 30 GeorghiadesandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1970)3CLR. 257; 311 / Eliades & Another v. Republic
(1988)PattichisandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1968)3CJ-.R.374; HjiSawaandAnotherv.TheRepublic
(1967)3C1.R.155; Petrou v.TheRepublic
(1967)3 C.L.R.40; GeorghiadesandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.653; HjiConstantinouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1973)3C.L.R. 65; 5 Triantafyllidesv.TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R.235; Sawav.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.675; Livadasv. TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 506; Lakatamitisv.PublicServiceCommission
(1985)3C.L.R.2269; Republic v.Petrides
(1984)3C.L.R. 378; HjUoannouv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.1041; 10 Vonditsianos v. Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 83 and on appeal
(1969)3 C.L.R.445; Frangosv.Republic
(1970)3C.L.R.312; leridesv.Republic
(1980)3C.L.R.
- Recourses. Recourses against the decision of therespondent to appoint and/orpromotetheinterestedpartiestothepostofAdministrative Officer inpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. 5 A. S.Angelides, for applicants. A. Vassiliades,forrespondents. 20 312 3 C.L.R. Eliades &Another v.Republic X.Xenopoulos, for interestedparties 1,2,5,8and 10in both cases andinterestedparty 12inCaseNo.586/
- AT.Tryphonos (Mrs.), for interestedparty 3inbothcases. K.Talarides, for interestedparty4inbothcases. 5 Μ.Papapetrou, forinterestedparty9inbothcases. _ N.Panayiotou, for interestedparties6and 11inbothcases. M.Vassiliou, for interestedparty 13incase No.586/84and interestedparty 12incaseNo.587/
- Cur. adv. vult. 10^-^ LORIS J. read the following judgment. Applicants in the above intituledrecourses,whichwereheardtogetheronthe appli cationof allconcernedaspresentingcommonlegalandfactual is sues,impugnthedecisionof therespondentP.S.C.published in theOfficial GazetteoftheRepublicon 19.10.84, whereby the13 15 interestedparties incaseNo.586/84(12interestedpartiesincase No.587/84)were appointedand/orpromotedtothepost of Ad ministrative Officer, General Administrative Staff,inpreference toandinsteadof theApplicants. 20 25 Inexamining theabove intituledrecourses,itmustalwaysbe bornein mind,thatthepost of Administrative Officer, General Administrative Staff,isafirstentryandpromotionpost. Theobject of ourlaw increatingthecategory offirstentry and promotionposts is toattractcandidatesfrom outsidetheservice andatthesametimegivetheopportunityfor promotiontosuitablepersons already intheservice. (VideTheRepublicandAno therv.Aristotelous
(1982)3 C.L.R.497 -Smyrniosv. TheRe public
(1983)3C.L.R. 124 atp. 130). 313 LorisJ. Eliades &Another v.Republic
(1988)"Preference for thosealready intheservice can neveroverridethefundamental principlethat themost suitablecandidate has to be selected for appointment or promotion to a vacant post in thepublic service.Aperson in the servicemay,for the above reason, be bypassed in order to appoint an outsider to 5 the service -(Andreou v.TheRepublic,
(1979)3C.L.R. 379; Theodossiou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 44, 48; Georghiades andAnother v.TheRepublic,
(1970)3C.L.R. 257,262, 263; Pattichis and Another v.TheRepublic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 374, 381;HjiSawa and Another v. The Republic,
(1967)3 , C.L.R. 155, 179; Petrou v. The Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 40, 48; Georghiades and Others v. The Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 653,666;Hadjiconstantiou and Othersv.The Republic,
(1973)3 C.L.R. 65,71)." Applicant inrecourse No.586/84entered thepublic service as early as 1974 and was at the material time holding the post of Clerk 2ndGrade (P.) having been promoted totheaforesaid post on 1.7.
- , Applicant No. 1incase No.587/84 entered thepublic service asearly as 1973andwas holding thepostof Examiner 1stGrade ~ in theDepartment of the Official Receiver and Registrar as from 15.8.1981; applicant No. 2in the same recourse, was holding at the material time the permanent post of Accounting Officer 3rd Grade,inwhich he was appointed asearly as
- Now withregardtotheinterestedparties:Eleftheria HadjiPav- ~ lou, (interested party No. 13in recourse 586/84 and interested party No. 12 in recourse 587/84) entered the public service in 1981 and was appointed to the permament post of Clerk 2nd Grade on 1.7.
- Theremaining interested parties have noconfidential reports, ~ as four of them, notably interested parties 1, 2, 6 and 11 were serving atthematerial timeoncasual basis,whilst alltheremainingwere "outsiders". 314 3C.L.R. Eliades& Anotherv.Republic LorisJ. ThepostsinquestionwereadvertisedintheOfficial Gazetteof theRepublicof20.5.83(videAppendix 3attachedtotheopposition). 5 Itis significant tonotethat sub-paragraph
(4)ofparagraph3 (requiredqualifications) of theaforesaid advertisementprovides that: "
(4)Candidatesmustbesuccessful inaspecialexamination inwriting,for thispost." 10 15 20 25 30 Pursuanttotheadvertisement aforesaid, inviting applications fortheaforesaid 13posts,447candidatesincludingallapplicants andtheinterestedparties,appliedforappointmenttothepostsin question. TheDepartmental Boardsetupundersection 36ofthePublic ServiceLaw(LawNo.33/67)for thepurposeofadvisingtherespondentP.S.C.after examining thematerial before it and after interviewing the candidates, recommended 52 for the posts in question includingalltheapplicantsandallinterested partiesas well. Therespondent P.S.C.havingin mind the recommendations of theBoard andthematerial before them,invited all 52candidatesrecommendedbytheBoardforaninterview;theActingDirectoroftheDepartmentofPublicAdministrationandPersonnel wasalsoinvitedtoattendtheinterviewinquestion. Attheinterviewheld,boththeActingDirectoroftheDepartmentofPublicAdministration andPersonnelaswellasthechairm an andmembersoftheP.S.C,putquestionstothecandidates; after theconclusionoftheinterviewsasaforesaid, theAg.Directorexpressed hisownviewsastotheperformance of thecandidatesattheinterviewsandleft;theviewsoftheDirectorasaforesaidarerecordedinappendix28attachedtotheopposition. The respondent P.S.C. after examining the material before 315 Loris J. Eliades &Another v. Republic
(1988)them, including the personal files and theconfidential reportsof the candidates already intheservice and theresultsof the special examination inwritingenvisaged bysub-para
(4)of para.3of the required qualifications (VideAppendix 3),and after considering the recommendations of theDepartmental Board and theperfor- g mance of the candidates at the interviews held by the P.S.C, in the lightof theviews of theActingDirectorof Personnel selected as themost suitable candidates for the aforesaid 13posts the 13 interested parties i.e. the 12interested parties appearing with the other interested parties in recourse 587/84,plus I.P. Elissavet N. ,( Filippidou appearing with theother interested parties in recourse 586/84. The main complaint of theapplicants in theaboveintituledrecourses is to the effect that the respondent P.S.C. attributed undue weight totheimpressions created bythecandidatesat thein- « terviews; it was submitted that such impressions became a decisive factor which brought about thedecision topromote the 13interested parties in preference toand instead of theapplicants. Itiswell settled that impressions created bycandidates at the interviews should not be given undue and disproportionate weight (see inter alia: Triantafyllides v. The Republic,
(1970)3 C.L.R. 235, 245 Savva v. The Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 675, 691-695, Smyrnios v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 124, 135, Livadas v. The Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 506, 511,512, Lakatamitis v. P.S.C.
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2269 at p. 2272). Having carefully gone through thematerial before me, Ihold the view that the respondent P.S.C. did not attribute undue weight to the impressions created by the candidates at the interviews; on the contrary the relevant record indicates that the respondent paiddueregard totheevaluation of thecandidates made through theinterviews astheywerelegitimately entitled todo. "Nodoubt theCommission inconsidering themerits,qualifications andexperience and,generally,thesuitabilityof acandidate to a given post, should also take into account the im316 2 3 C.L.R. Eliades &Anothr v. Republic Loris J. pression created by suchcandidateat therelevant interview..." (Republic v.Petrides
(1984)3C.L.R. 378 at p.386). Andthisisafortiori soincases, like theone under consideration, where thereis noother material or almost noother material to rely on, for evaluating the merit of thecandidate in question; and we must not loose sight of the fact that in the present cases mostof theinterested partieswere "outsiders"and their merit had mostlytobededuced from theirperformance attheinterview,and partly from theresultof theexamination in writing envisaged by sub-para
(4)ofpara. 3of thequalifications, envisaged bytherelevant schemeof service(Appendix3). As I have stated at the beginning of thisjudgment relying on authority "aperson intheservicemay -for thepurpose of selecting themost suitable candidate -bebypassed inorder to appoint an outsider tothe service". In thisconnection Ifeel that I should add here, that therespondent P.S.C.in adopting thiscourse gave adequate reasoning for so acting and thisis quiteapparent from pages 8and9of Appendix 28(attached totheOpposition). Itisapparent that thepresent recoursesaredirected against the exercise by the respondent P.S.C. of itsdiscretionary powers.It isapparentfromtheperusal oftherecourses thattheirchallengeis vague and uncertain. I have dealt with at length with their main complaint, as Iwas abletocomprehend it,notably tothe allegation that P.S.C. attributed undue weight totheimpressions created by the candidates at the interviews.Turning now, tothesubjudice decision as a whole, I hold the view that the applicants failed toestablish striking superiority over theinterested parties. TheviewsoftheDepartmental Board, theresults of theexamination in writing for the post, theviews of the Director of Personnel,bothastohisimpressionscreated attheinterviewsaswellas tohisimpressions for those whowerecasually employed, and finally the views formed by the respondent P.S.C. themselves (videcomparative table-Appendix 32attached totheopposition) cannot byany stretch of imagination support theview thatappli- 317 Loris J. Eliades & Another v. Republic
(1988)cantswere strikingly superiortotheinterestedparties. And itis ν ell settled thatanAdministrative Courtwill notin terfere unless Λis established thatanapplicantis strikingly supe rior tothecandidateselected (Hjiloannou v. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1041 at p. 1045). Concluding Ifeel thatI shouldrepeat herewhat was stated by TriantafyHides J., as he thenwas, in Charalambos Georghiades and Another v. TheRepublic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 257 atp. 268: "The Courthas laid down morethan oncethatwhere aper son appointed to a post is duly qualified under the relevant schemeof service this Courtwill not,ontheissue of suitability, substitute its own discretion for that of the Commission provided that the Commission's discretion has been properly exercised; in other words, themere fact thatthe Court,had it been in the position of the Commission, might possibly not have selected for appointmentthesamecandidatesas theCommission, is notin itself sufficient ground for theCourttointer fere with thedecision of the Commission" (and see, too,the case of Vonditsianos and The Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 83; on appeal
(1969)3 C.L.R. 445). And furthermore,Ishouldremindthequitewide discretionary powers of the appointing authority in selecting themost suitable candidates for appointmentto high office in the administrative structure: "In selecting themost suitable candidatefor appointmentto high office in the administrative structure the appointing authority is vested with quite wide discretionary powers" (vide Frangos v. Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 312 at p. 343 - Ierides v.Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 168 atp. 183. 318 υ ^ 20 25 3 C.L.R. Eliades &Another v. Republic Loris J. Foralltheabovereasonspresentrecoursesaredoomed tofailure andthey areaccordingly dismissed. Inthecircumstances Ishall notmakeany orderastocosts. Recourses dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 319