clr/1988/1988_3_343.pdf

(2)of thePublicServiceLaw, 1967(33/67).Asaresulthecomplainedofhisexclusion from the listof those recommended. The Public ServiceCommis- 343 Christoudias & Another v. Republic

(1988)sionexaminedhiscomplaint,but,attheend,itturneddowntheobjection. Therelevantpartofthedecisionreadsasfollows: "

(1)Bearinginmind(a)thattheDepartmentalBoardarrivedatitsrecommendationsafterconsidering,apartfrom theresultsoftheexaminationinwriting,theperformanceofthecandidatesattheinterviewsbe- c foreit,and (b)thattheDepartmentalBoardrecommended52candidatesforthe 13vacantposts,that is,thegreatestnumberpossibleaccordingtothe RelevantRegulations.

(2)After examiningallthematerialbefore it,includingtheapplicalionsofthecandidates,aswellastheconfidential reportsandpersonal files ofapplicantNo. 1,whowasalready intheservice,theresultsof thespecialexamination inwriting,aswellastherecommendationsof theDepartmentalBoard." IQ Held,dismissingtherecourse:

(1)TherespondentP.S.C.didnotfail to .,considerthecandidatureofapplicantNo. 1 forthepostinquestion,buton thecontrarytookintoconsiderationalltherelevantmaterialbeforeit,plus therecommendationsof theDepartmental Board,whichcarriedoutadue inquiryandcompliedabsolutelywiththelawandtherelevantRegulations. Itisimportanttonotethatinexaminingtheaforesaidcomplaintofapplicant ~„ No. 1,theP.S.C.carried out athorough inquiry themselves andreached theirowndecisionwhichcannototherwisebefaulted.

(2)Asregardstheissueraisedbyapplicant2inrespectofthequalificationsofinterestedparty2,thisCourtreachedtheconclusionthatinthecircumstancesitwasreasonablyopentotherespondentCommissiontointerpre andapplytherelevantschemeofserviceasithasdone. --

(3)Theapplicantsfailed toestablishstrikingsuperiorityovertheinterestedparties. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 30 Andreou v.Republic

(1979)3C.L.R.

1. 344 3 C.L.R. Christoudias & Another v. Republic Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondent toappointand/ orpromotetheinterested parties tothepost of Administrative Of­ ficer inpreference andinstead of theapplicants. 5 C. Loizou, for applicants. A.VassiliadeSy for therespondent. X. Xenopoulos, for interested parties 1,2, 5, 8, 10 and
2. A. Tryfonos (Mrs.), for interested pan 3 K. Talarides, for interested party
3. ΙΟ M.Papapetrou, for interested party
4. N.Panayiotou,for interested parties 6 and
5. M. Vassiliou, for interested party 13, Cur. adv. vult. 15 20 LORIS J. read the following judgment.Both Applicants impugn by means of the present recourse, the decision of the re­ spondent P.S.C. ,published in theOfficial Gazetteof theRepu­ blic on 19.10.84,whereby the 13 interested parties,wereappoint­ ed and/orpromotedto thepost of Administrative Officer, Gene­ ral Administrative Staff, inpreference toandinstead of theapplicants. Applicant No. 1raises a general ground for annulment,nota­ bly failure of the respondent P.S.C. to consider his candidature for the post in question, inspite of the fact that he possessed all thequalifications envisaged by therelevant schemeof service. 25 Hemaintainsthat hewas notconsidered as acandidateby the 345 Loris J. Christoudias & Another v. Republic

(1988)respondent P.S.C. relying on the fact that he was not called by the P.S.C. for an interview. Before ruling on the above submission of applicant No. 1,1 consider it necessary toexamine thefacts connected with thisissueastheyemergefrom thematerial before me: 5 Applicant No. 1 in the above intituled recourse entered the public service in 1964 and was at the material time holding the post of Clerical Officer (P),having been promoted tothe aforesaid post on 15.12.

1. Applicant No. 2, entered the public service in 1970 and was holding thepost of Clerk 2ndGradeasfrom 1.11.
2. 10 Interested party No. 13entered thepublic servicein 1981and washolding thepost of Clerk 2ndGrade (P.)asfrom 1.7.83; the remaining interested parties have noconfidential reports as four of them, notably interested parties 1,2,6and 11, were serving at the material time on casual basis, whilst all the remaining were outsiders. 15 The post of Administrative Officer, General Administrative Staff, is a first entry and promotion post; for this reason the respondent P.S.C. decided at its meeting of 30.7.82 to advertise the posts in question in the Official Gazette of the Republic; in fact they weresoadvertised intheofficial GazetteoftheRepublic ^0 of 20.5.
3. It is significant to note that sub-paragraph

(4)of paragraph 3 (required qualifications) of theaforesaid advertisement provides that: 25 "

(4)Candidatesmustbesuccessful inaspecial examination in writing, for this post." Pursuant to the advertisement aforesaid, inviting applications for the aforesaid 13 posts, 447 candidates including both appli346 3C.L.R. Christoudias &Another v.Republic LorisJ. cants and the interested parties, applied for appointment tothe postsinquestion. 5 10 15 20 25 «Q TheSecretary of therespondent P.S.C.forwarded interalia, totheChairmanoftheDepartmentalBoardsetupunders.36

(1)of Law33/67-inordertoadvisetheCommission inrespectof appointmentsorpromotionstoanyoffice whichisnotaspecializedoffice (andthepostinquestionisnotaspecializedone)-the applicationsofall447candidates,togetherwiththe confidential reports and personal files of candidates already in the service (videAppendices4and5attachedtotheopposition). Itmustbeemphasizedatthisstagethattheapplicationsofboth applicants (vide Nos.437 and 432 - for applicants 1and 2respectively-incatalogueofapplicantsappendedtoAppendix4attachedtotheopposition),aswellastheirconfidential reportsand personalfiles(vide Nos.29and 28 -for applicants 1and 2respectively -inAppendix "B"attached toAppendix4)werelikewiseforwarded totheChairmanoftheDepartmentalBoard. Ifeeldutyboundtomentionhere,bywayofparenthesis,that theCouncil ofMinistershasapproved Regulations forthecomposition,functions andprocedureofDepartmental Boardspursuanttotheprovisionsofs.36

(2)ofLaw33/67.TheseRegulations were embodied in Circular No.490dated 20th March 1979, of theMinistryofFinance-DepartmentofPersonnel,andcameinto force asfrom 1.6.1979. Theaforesaid circularisappended torecourseNo. 180/85,as Appendix 33;theaforesaid recourse inwhichjudgment wasdeliveredbymeshortwhileago,refers tothesamesub-judicedecisionbutitwasnotheardtogetherwiththepresentcaseaslearned counselappearingforbothapplicantsinthecaseunderconsideration,insistedthatthecaseinhandshouldbedealtwithseparately aspresentinganidiomaticsituation,duetothegeneralgroundfor annulment raised in connection with applicant No. 1 in the presentrecourse. 347 Loris J. Christoudias & Another v. Republic

(1988)Reverting tothefacts ofthiscase: Both applicants took the examination in writing for this post (envisaged by thepublication intheOfficial Gazette -para 3

(4)) on 8.10.83; the output in the said examinations of both applicants,issetout inAppendix 6attached totheopposition. 5 The Departmental Board at its meeting of 22.3.84 having before it,interalia,the applications of all candidates (including the applicants), theconfidential reports andpersonalfilesof thecandidates already intheservice(including thoseof bothapplicants), the results of the examination in writing for the post (including 10 thoseof both candidates),andbearing inmind theperformance of thecandidates attheinterviews held before it,between 9.2.84up to 21.2.84, decided to recommend pursuant to Regulation 6 of the aforesaid Regulations, 52 out of the 447 candidates, that is not more than 4candidates foreach one of the 13vacant postsof 25 AdministrativeOfficer, tobefilled. TheDepartmental Board submitted itsdetailedreport totherespondent P.S.C, as envisaged by theRegulations aforesaid. Asitappears from therelevantcatalogue appended (videpage 5) to Appendix No. 6, both applicants (vide Nos. 159 and 154 20 for applicants 1 &2respectively) were held (

1. a)topossesstherequired qualifications envisaged bytherelevant schemeofservice; (
2. b)to havepassed therequired examination in writing for the post. It is also apparent from Schedule II (page 7) attached to Ap- 25 pendix6that applicant No.2inthepresentrecourse was included in the 52 candidates recommended for promotion, whilst it is clear that applicant No. 1 wasincluded in ScheduleIIIof Appendix 6 (videp.4 serial No. 104)which contains the namesof candidates not recommended and the reasons for adopting such course. 348 30 3 C.L.R. 5 IQ 15 Christoudias &Another v. Republic Loris J. Although Icould not trace from thematerial before methe sourceof information of applicantNo. 1,inconnectionwith his nonrecommendationby theDepartmental Board,there remains thefact thattheapplicant addressed on3.7.84a letter tothe respondentP.S.C.(videred 112Δ inhispersonal file which isEx­ hibit "N" before
3. me)complainingfor the decision of the Depart­ mentalBoardandinviting theCommissiontofixaninterview for him. Itis apparentfrom theminutesof themeetingof 24.7.84(Appendix 23attachedtotheopposition)thattherespondentP.S.C. rejected theaforesaid requestof applicantNo.1:

(1)Bearing inmind(a) thatthe DepartmentalBoardarrivedat its recommendationsafter considering apart from theresults of theexaminationinwriting, theperformanceof thecandidatesat theinterviewsbefore it, and (b)thattheDepartmental Board recommended52candidates for the 13vacant posts, thatis, thegreatest numberpossibleac­ cording totheRelevantRegulations. 20 25 30

(2)After examining all thematerialbefore it,including the applicationsof thecandidates,aswellastheconfidential reports and personalfilesof applicantNo. 1, whowas already intheservice, theresults of thespecial examination in writing, as well asthe recommendationsoftheDepartmentalBoard. Theaforesaid decision of theRespondentP.S.C.wascommunicatedtoapplicantNo. 1by letterdated10.8.84(videRed 112Γ inExh. "N"). Thusitis apparentfrom theabovethattherespondent P.S.C. didnotfail toconsiderthe candidature of applicantNo. 1 forthe post in question,but onthecontrary took intoconsideration all therelevant material before it,plus therecommendations of the Departmental Board,which carried outadueinquiry and comp­ lied absolutely withthe law andtherelevant Regulations.Itisim349 Loris J. Christoudias &Another v.Republic

(1988)portant tonotethatinexamining theapplication of applicant No. 1 dated 3.7.84 the P.S.C. carried out a thorough inquiry themselvesandreached theirown decision which cannot otherwise be faulted. In theresult thegeneral ground for annulment raised byapplicant No. 1 isdoomed to failure. . With regard to applicant No. 2,1 may repeat that he was recommended by theDepartmental Board. The Respondent P.S.C. after examining the material before them, including the personal files and the confidential reportsof thecandidates already in theservice and theresultsof thespecial 10 examination inwritingenvisaged bysub-para

(4)ofpara.3of the required qualifications (Vide Appendix 3),and after considering the recommendations of the Departmental Board and the performance of the candidates at the interviews held by the P.S.C, in thelightofthe views of theActingDirectorofPersonnel selected 15 as the most suitable candidates for the aforesaid 13posts the 13 interested parties. In delivering shortwhile ago,thejudgment of this Court inrecourses Nos. 586/84 and 587/84* (tried together) which were challenging the same sub-judice decision of the Respondent P.S.C, Ihad theopportunity ofdealing at length with thenature. of the "first entry and promotion post"as wellaswith complaints similartotheones advanced intherecourse under consideration, inconnection with alleged "undueweight attributed totheimpressions created by thecandidates attheinterviews"and complaints with respect tosuperiority of applicantsover interested parties. ^5 I do not intend repeating what I have stated in delivering the judgment in the aforesaid cases.I shall confine myself in adoptingmystand inthosecases,and theauthorities therein cited. I should perhaps deal briefly only with theissueraised in this case inrespect of interested party No.2,notably the alleged non *(Seep. 310 inthispart ante). 350 ™ 3 CL.R. 5 0 5 Christoudias & Another v. Republic Loris J. possession by her of the required Academic qualification envisaged by the relevant scheme of service. In the first place it is within theprovince of the respondent P.S.C. tointerpret andapplytherelevant schemeof service.Asstated bythelearned President of this Court in Andreou v. The Republic

(1979)3 CL.R. 379 atpp. 386,387: "Itiswellestablished that itisuptotheappointing authority -inthiscase therespondent Commission -tointerpret andapply therelevant schemeof serviceinthecircumstances ofeach particular case, and this Court will not interfere with an appointment made by such authority if it is not satisfied that it was not reasonably open tothe authority in question to interpretand apply theschemeof service intheway in which ithas done (see Papapetrou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C 61.69, Josephides v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C 72, 77, Petsas v. The Republic, 3 R.S.C.C 60, 63,Neophytou v. The Republic, 1964 CL.R. 280, 299, Georghiades and others v. The Republic,

(1967)3 CL.R. 653,668,Try/on v. The Republic,

(1968)3 CL.R. 28, 40, Kyriakou and others v. The Republic,

(1975)3 CL.R. 37,44,45"). In theinstant case havingconsidered therelevant material before me, bearing in mind as well the extensive inquiry by therespondent on this issue, I am of the view that it was reasonably open totherespondent Commission to interpret and apply therelevant schemeof serviceasithasdone. 5 Having given tothepresent casemybestconsideration, Ihold the view that applicant No. 2 has failed, as well, to establish striking superiority over the interested parties; and as repeatedly stated, an Administrative Court will not interfere unless it isestablished that an applicant is strikingly superior tothe candidate selected. 351 Loris J. Christoudias &Another v. Republic

(1988)In theresultpresentrecourse fails in itsentirety and is hereby dismissed. Let there benoorder astocosts. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 352