3 C.L.R. 1988February26 [LORIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION PARASKEVIZENIOUEVANGELIANDANOTHER, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CasesNos.309/86and310/86). Recoursefor annulment—Filing beforepublication, required bylaw, ofthe subjudicedecision—Whetherpremature—Inthecircumstances, thequestionwasdeterminedinthenegative. 5 PublicOfficers—Promotions—Head ofDepartment-Recommendations— Inconsistentwithoverallpictureasregardsmeritandqualificationsand, moreover,containednoreferencetothesubstantialseniorityoftheinterestedpartiesovertheapplicants--JRightlydisregarded. Public Officers—Promotions—Merit—Assessing of—Thesignificance ofthe confidentialreportsand,especially,ofthemostrecentones. 10 PublicOfficers—Promotions—Publication of,inOfficial Gazette—Time of publication—ThePublicServiceLaw33/67,sections44
(6)and44
(5). Bymeansof theserecoursestheapplicantsimpugned thedecision to promoteinterestedpartiesAgathocleousandKyprianoutothepostofWard Supervisor,DepartmentofMentalHealthServices. 15 Theinterestedpartiesraised,interalia,apreliminaryobjection thatthe recoursesarepremature,inthatthey wereHiedbefore publicationof the subjudicedecisionintheOfficialGazette. 329 Evangeli & Another ν. Republic
(1988)Theratingof theapplicantsintheconfidential reportsof thelast2years is moreorlessequal with interestedpartyNo.2andmarginally betterfrom theratingof interestedpartyNo.
- The applicants, however, were recommended for promotion by the Headof theDepartment,who,inrecommendingapplicantinrecourse309/ 86,statedthathermeritis verygreatincomparisonwithothersandshehas qualifications aswell. 5 As regards qualifications, theapplicantsandtheinterestedpartiesare moreorlessequal. InterestedpartyNo. 1 hasaseniority ofover 11yearsoverapplicantin Case No. 309/86and aseniority of 6'Λ years over theapplicant inCase No.310/86, whilstinterestedparty No. 2hasaseniority of lO'/iyears over applicantinCaseNo.309/86andaseniority of6yearsovertheapplicant in Case No. 310/
- 10 Held,dismissingboth thepreliminaryobjection andtherecourse:
(1)Section44
(6)ofLaw 33/67provides that"Promotionsshallbepublished in 15 theOfficial Gazetteof theRepublic",butdoesnotsay when.Inviewofthe provisions of s.44
(5)onewould expectthepublication tobemadewithin reasonabletimeafter theacceptanceinwriting of theofficer promoted. Theobjection, however, is in thecircumstances untenable, becauseat thetimethe recoursewas filed theapplicantshadanexistinglegitimate in- 20 terestFurthermoretherelevantpublicationintheOfficial GazetteoftheRe public,sanctionedretrospectively thecertaintyof theadministrativedeci sioninquestion.
(2)Indeciding onthemeritsof thecandidatesitis necessary tolookat the confidential reports of thecandidates andespecially themostrecent ones. 25
(3)Therecommendationsof theHeadof theDepartmentwere inconsis tent with theoverall picturepresentedby theconfidential reports andthe personal files; furthermorethefailure of theHeadof theDepartmenttopay anyheedtoseniority andtheabsenceof asinglewordtowardsthatdirec tionwas impermissible. 30
(4)TherespondentCommissiongaveclearly thereasonsfor non adopt ing therecommendationsinquestion. 330 3 C.L.R. Evangeli & Another v. Republic
(5)Theapplicantsinbothcasesfailed toestablish"strikingsuperiority" overtheinterestedparties. Recoursesdismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: HadjiGregoriouv. TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.477; Jacovidesv. TheRepublic
(1966)3C.L.R. 212; Georghiou v.TheRepublic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74; Republicv.Koufettas
(1985)3C.L.R.1950; 10 Hjiloannou v.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1041. Recourses. 15 Recoursesagainst thedecision oftherespondents topromote theinterestedparties tothepost ofWardSupervisor in theDepartmentof MentalHealth Servicesinpreference andinsteadof theapplicants. E.Efstathiou, forapplicants. A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of theRepublic,for respondent. L.Papaphilippou,forinterestedparty 1 inbothcases. 20 AS. Angelides,forinterestedparry2inbothcases. Cur. adv. vult. LORIS J. read the following judgment. Applicants in the aboveintituledrecourses,whichwereheardtogetherontheapplicationofallconcernedaspresentingcommonfactualandlegalis331 LorisJ. Evangeli &Another v.Republic
(1988)sues, challenge the decision of the respondent P.S.C. dated 27.3.86, whereby interested parties No. 1 and 2namely Christophoros (Takis)Aghathocleousand Eleni Kyprianou togetherwith another 2 candidates, who where notjoined as interested parties in the present proceedings, were promoted to the post of Ward 5 Supervisor, Department of Mental Health Services, Ministry of Health,inpreference toand instead of theapplicants. Before proceeding toexamine themeritsof theaforesaid cases I shalldeal briefly with twopreliminary objections raised by the interested parties in both recourses. ,^ A. Objection referring to the title of both recourses. Both recourses were initially referring to the respondent as "The Republic of Cyprus, through the Public Service Authority"; during the hearing of both recourses both interested partiesconceded that the word "Authority" was inserted through clerical error and should 15 read instead "Commission". In the circumstances, on 8.7.19871 allowed an amendment of thetitleinrespectof theRespondent so as to read "The Republic of Cyprus, through the Public Service Commission", beingsatisfied that theamendment at that stage,as above,did notprejudice eitherof theparties intheseproceedings, 20 or the interests ofjustice, inanyway. B. Objection that both recourses are premature having been filed before thepublication of thesub-judice decision inthe OfficialGazetteof theRepublic. In considering thisobjection Ishall confine myself totheparticular facts of thecases underconsideration and therelevantprovisions of our Law. 25 On 27.3.86 therespondent P.S.C.reached thesubjudice decision thereby selecting forpromotion tothepostof Ward Supervisor, Department of Mental Health Services,4 candidates, thein- ™ terested parties being the two outof the four selected; it is clear therefore that theapplicants werenot selected for promotion. Furthermore the respondent Commission decided to make an offer accordingly, tothose selected. 332 3C.L.R. 5 Evangeli& Another v.Republic LorisJ. Thuson 14.4.86 therespondentP.S.C.forwarded tobothinterestedpartiestheoffer inquestionandinvitedthemtoacknowledgewhether they areaccepting such offer (videred 36inthe personalfileofinterestedpartyNo. 1 -Ex.3Aandred63inthe personalfileofInt.PartyNo.2-Ex. 4A). On 19.4.86bothinterestedpartiesaddressedtotherespondent their respective replies indicating their acceptance of the offer madetothem(videred37inEx.3Aandred64inExh.4A). 10 15 On the same day i.e. on 19.4.86 the Director of the Mental Health Services, (whoobviously came toknow about the offer and the respective acceptance by the interested parties, as the wholecorrespondencebetweentheP.S.C.andtheinterestedpartieswasexchanged through him)issuedanannouncementtoall membersoftheStaff ofMentalHealth Services(videExh. 1 attachedtotheaddressinreply)informing allconcernedofthepromotionofthe4candidatestothesaidpostasfrom 15.4.86. Bothapplicantsfiledthepresentrecourseson30.4.86. 20 TherelevantpublicationintheOfficial GazetteoftheRepublic wasmadeon6.6.1986;anditisclearlystatedthereinthatthepromotionsinquestionweremadewitheffect asfrom15.4.1986. 25 Itistruethats.44
(6)ofLaw33/67providesthat"Promotions shallbepublished intheOfficial Gazetteof theRepublic".Itis significant tonotethatitdoesnotsaywhen.Inviewoftheprovisionsof s.44
(5)one would expect thepublication to bemade sometimeafter theacceptanceinwritingoftheofficer promoted; andofcoursewithinreasonabletime thereafter. Thetimethatelapsedfromtheacceptanceoftheinterestedpartiesuptopublicationis,inmyview,quite reasonable. 30 Theapplicantsobviouslycametoknowaboutthefinilized sub judicedecisionfromtheaforesaid announcementoftheDirector of MentalServicesdated 19.4.1986;andtheyfiled theirrespec333 Loris J. Evangeli & Another v. Republic
(1988)riverecourses on30.4.1986.Inthecircumstances they hadanex istinglegitimate interestatthetime. Furthermoretherelevant publication intheofficial Gazetteof theRepublicon6.6.86,sanctionedretrospectivelythecertaintyof theadministrative decision inquestion. 5 Inthecircumstances theobjection underΒ aboveis untenable andis accordingly dismissed. Reverting now tothemeritsof thecasesunderconsideration: Both applicants complain thattherespondentP.S.C.failed to select themost suitable candidatesfor promotionby ignoring the , f t superior merit and qualifications of the applicants, and thatin reaching atthesub-judice decision therespondentdisregarded the recommendation of both applicants by theHeadof the Depart mentconcerned andselected for promotion,withoutdue inquiry, theinterested parties whowerenotso recommended. In deciding on themerits of thecandidates it is necessary to look attheconfidential reports of thecandidates "andespecially themostrecentones"(HadjiGregoriou v.TheRepublic
(1975)3 C.L.R. 477 at p. 483). "The importance of themore recent of such reports has been,also recognised inJacovides v.TheRepublic
(1966)3 C.L.R. 212, 221,andmay bederived toofromthe provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d)of sub-section
(1)of section 44 of Law 33/67" (vide Odysseas Georghiou v. The Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74 at p.82). ^0 Therating of theapplicants in theconfidential reports of the last 2yearsis moreorlessequal with interested party No.2and marginally betterfromtherating of interested party No. 1.Thus bothapplicants wereratedfor theyears 1984 and 1985 with 8-40 whilstinterested party No. 1 was ratedfor 1984 (4-8-0) andfor 30 1985 (6-6-0).Interestedparty No.2was rated7-5-0 for theyears 1984 and 1985,aswell. 334 25 3 C.L.R. 5 ,Q Evangeli &Another Republic Loris J. It istrue that therecommendation of theHead of the Departmentenhancesthemeritof acandidateandcannotbelightlydisregarded. In theinstant case the Director of Mental Services recommended as 1stand2ndchoices,Araouzos andPetridou,who are not parties in the present proceedings, and as 3rd and 4th choicestheapplicantsinrecourses309/86and 310/86respectively. The respondent P.S.C. adopted the recommendations of the Headof theDepartmentinrespectofthecandidatesAraouzos and Petridou but did not follow hisrecommendations for both applicants givingclearly theirreasons,in their aforesaid decision, for theiraforesaid departurefrom therecommendations inquestions. TheHead of theDepartment recommending applicant in case No.309/86 asa3rdchoice,stated inter alia "that hermerit isvery great in comparison with others and she has qualifications as 15 2Q «c 30 wel1 ·" Comparing his above statement, withregardtomerit, with the merit of.the interested parties as it transpires from the relevant confidential reports it may be observed that the aforesaid statementdoes notrepresent thereality;asalready pointed out earlier oninthepresentjudgment theratingof thisapplicantfor thelast 2years ismoreorlessequal withinterested Party No.2and marginally betterthan thatof interested party No.1. As regards qualifications, it is apparent from their personal files that the applicants aswell astheinterested parties possess a number of qualifications none of which is described by the Schemeof Serviceasan additional advantage.Thepicture, asregardsqualifications, of the applicants and both interested parties may bedescribed asmoreor lessequal. Independently of themerit andqualifications, theHead of the Department paid noheed atall totheoverwhelming seniority of theinterestedpartiesovertheapplicants;andinterested partyNo. 1 hasa seniorityofover 11yearsoverapplicantincase No.309/ 86andaseniority of 6xkyearsover theapplicantincaseNo.310/ 86, whilst interested party No. 2 has a seniority of \0lh years 335 LorisJ. Evangeli& Another
(1988)overapplicantincaseNo.309/86andaseniorityof6yearsover theapplicantincaseNo. 310/86. Inviewoftheaboveitisclearthattherecommendationsofthe HeadoftheDepartmentinfavourofbothapplicantswereinconsistent with theoverall picturepresented bytheconfidential re- 5 portsandtheirpersonalfiles;furthermore thefailureoftheHead oftheDepartmenttopayanyheedtoseniorityandtheabsenceof asinglewordtowardsthatdirectionisimpermissible. Inthecircumstances,therecommendationsoftheHeadofthe DepartmentinrespectofbothApplicantscouldbedisregardedby ,Q the respondent P.S.C. (Republic v. Koufettas
(1985)3C.L.R. 1950),whogaveclearlytheirreasonsinthesub-judicedecision, fornonadoptingtherecommendationsinquestion. Itisquiteclearthattheapplicantsinbothcasesfailed toestablish "striking superiority" overtheinterested partiesonanyone ofthecriteriaenvisaged bytheLawanditiswell settledthatan administrativeCourtcannotinterveneinordertosetasidethedecisionregardingaselectionforpromotionunlessitissatisfiedby an applicant that he was strikingly superior to theone selected (vide Hjloannou v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041 at p. 1045). 2° Havingcarefully gonethrough thematerialbefore me,Ihold theviewthattherespondentP.S.C.reachedatthesub-judicedecision after carrying out adueinquiry intothefacts andhaving alsoappliedcorrectlytheLawtothefactsofbothcases;inthecir- 25 cumstancesthesub-judicedecision wasreasonablyopentothem and cannot be faulted on any ground putforward by theapplicants. Intheresult bothrecoursesfail andtheyareaccordinglydismissed;lettherebenoorderastocosts. 30 Recoursesdismissed. Noorderastocosts 336