clr/1988/1988_3_61.pdf

(1987)3 CXJ?. 1092. 5 10 15 Inreachingthesubjudicedecisiontopromotetheinterestedpartiesto thepost of Assistant Land Officer in the Department of LandsandSurveysgreat weightwasattached bytheCommission totheconfidential reportsinrespectofthecandidates. Inagreatnumberofconfidentialreportsinrespectofsomeoftheinterestedpartiesthecountersigningofficers effected changestothebenefitof suchpartiesinamanner,contrary toReg.9*ofCircular491/79,whilstin someoftheapplicants,theyeffected changestotheirdetriment,inthesame mannerasaforesaid. Held,annullingthesub idicedecision:

(1)Theeffect ofthenoncompliance by countersigning officers with regulation 9above,has already beendecidedbytheFull' enchofthisCourtinthecaseofThe Republic v.Argyrides

(1987)3C I R. 1092.

(2)Following the sameapproach, theCourt reached theconclusion that, in the present cases too,as the assessments in a great number of *Quotedalpp.64-65post. Eftychiou and Others v.Republic

(1988)confidentialreportswereeffectedbythecountersigningofficerscontraryto theprovisionsofregulation9,above,andinamanneraffectingthegeneralpictureofthecandidates,whichtan[amountstoanillegalityand violatestheprovisionsof Article28of theConstitution,andasthe Commission had relied on such reports in selecting the most suitable 5 candidatesforpromotion,thesub-judicedecisionhastobeannulled. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Republic v. Argyrides

(1987)3C.L.R.1092; 10 Papamichaelv. Republic

(1987)3C.L.R. 1113; Stylianides v. Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1123; Theophanous v.Republic

(1987)3C.L.R. 1574; Xeros v.Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourses. ,5 Recoursesagainst thedecision of therespondenttopromotethe interested parties tothepost ofAssistant Land Officer in preferenceandinsteadof theapplicants. A. Eftychiou, for applicant inCase No. 184/
2. A. 5.Angelides, for applicants incases 192/84 and 282/
3. 20 E.Lemonaris, for applicant inCase No.217/
4. C.Koushios, for applicant inCaseNo.280/
5. A,Demetriadesy for applicantin CaseNo.302/
6. R. Cavrielides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. 62 25 3C.L.R. Eftychiou and Others v.Republic N.Cleridou (Mrs.), for interested partyChr.Ioannou. Cur. adv. vult. LORIS J. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourses, which were heard together as they present 5 commonlegalissues,theapplicantschallengethedecisionofthe respondent Public Service Commission to promote, instead of them,otherofficers (tobereferred tohereinafter asthe"interested parties")tothepostof AssistantLandOfficer intheDepartment ofLandsandSurveys. 10 Bymeansofrecourse 192/84theapplicantschallengethepromotionsofallfourteen interestedpartieswhosenamesappearin Schedule "A"attached to the recourse; by means of recourses 184/84,217/84,280/84,282/84theapplicantschallengethepromotionsof all interested parties except interested party G.Sav15 vides,andbymeansofrecourse302/84theapplicantschallenge onlythepromotionsofinterestedpartiesChr.Ioannou,N.Kouloumos,S.ZeniosandA.Kourousides. As the post of Assistant Land Officer is a promotion post, whenthefilling offourteen vacanciesinsuchpostwasapproved 20 bytheMinisterofFinance,aDepartmental Committeewasconstituted, pursuant to the provisions of section 36 of the Public ServiceLaws 1967to 1983,fortherecommendation tothePublic ServiceCommissionofthosecandidateseligibleforpromotion. TheDepartmental Committeemeton 15December 1983 and 25 havingconsidered theseniority,confidential reportsandqualificationsof 117candidates,recommended,in alphabetical order, 56candidates,includingtheapplicantsandtheinterestedparties. Regardingtheconfidential reportsofthecandidatesthemembersoftheDepartmentalCommittee statedthatin someofthem 30 theynoticedgreatflactuations intheevaluationofthecandidates fromoneyeartoanotherwithoutanycommentbeingmadeorany explanationbeinggiveninsuchreports. 63 Loris J. Eftychiou and Others v. Republic

(1988)ThePublic Service Commission atitsmeetingof 13February 1984, having heardtheviewsandrecommendationsof theDirec­ torof theDepartmentofLandsandSurveysandhaving taken into account theconclusions of theDepartmentalCommitteeand all relevant materialcontainedinthepersonal files andtheconflden- 5 tial reportfiles, in respect of thecandidates,considered that, on the basis of theestablished criteria namely merit, qualifications andseniority, theinterested parties weresuperior totheothercan­ didates anddecided topromotethemas themost suitable to the post concerned. ™ From thecontentsof therelevant minutes of therespondent Commission (see Appendix 15) it appears clearly that great weight was attached by the Commission to theconfidential re­ portsinrespectof thecandidatesandspecific reference is made to theanalytical rating inthe reportsof someof theinterestedparties 15 for thelast threeyears as themainreason for selecting themfor promotion instead of thoserecommended by theDirectorof the Departmentof LandsandSurveys. Counsel for theapplicants incases 184/84 and280/84submit­ ted inter alia, that the confidential reports in the present cases 20 could notconstituteasafecriterion andcould notberelied onby the respondent Commission, inview of thenoncompliance by the countersigning officers with the procedure envisaged by meansof regulation 9of theRegulations concerning theprepara­ tion of confidential reports, as contained in Circular 491 of 26 25 March 1979, which reads as follows: "9.To ΜέροςV τουτύπου Β δέονόπως συμαιληρούται υπό του Προσυπογράφοντος Λειτουργού κατόπιν προσεκτικής μελέτης των επί μέρους βαθμολογιών του Αξιολογούντος Λειτουργού. Εάν ο Προσυπογραφών 30 Λειτουργός διαφωνήως προςοιανδήποτετων επίμέρους βαθμολογιών του Αξιολογούντος Λειτουργού, συζητείτο θέμα μετ' αυτού και, εάν η διαφωνία εξακολουθή να υφίσταται, δίδει την ιδικήν αξιολόγησιν δι' ερυθράς μελάνης και μονογραφεί ταύτην, αιτιολογών την ιδικήν 35 64 3 C.L.R. Eftychiou and Others v. Republic Loris J. του αξιολόγησαν ειςτηνστήληντων παρατηρήσεων". 5 "9. Part V of Type Β should be filled in by theCounter­ signing Officer after careful considerationof the assessments on each item by theReporting Officer. If the Countersigning Officer disagrees ontheassessment onany itemby the Report­ ing Officer, he discusses thematterwith him andif the disa­ greement continues to exist, he gives his own assessment in red ink and initials same, giving the reasons for his own as­ sessment in thecolumnfor remarks".) 10 Inparticularcounsel have pointedoutthatin agreat numberof confidential reports,in respect of some of the interested parties, the countersigning officers instead of complying with regulation 9, above, proceeded andmadetheirown assessments, on various items,without having first discussed thematterwith thereporting 15 officers concernedandwithout giving any reasons for their own assessment in the column for remarks and that such changes have resulted in some occasions to thegeneral upgrading of the interested parties in amanneraffecting detrimentally therightsof theapplicants. 20 On the other hand changes were effected in the same way in confidential reports in respect of some of the applicants with the result that their general assessment was changed to theirdetri­ ment. I have perused thecontentsof theconfidential reports and it 25 suffices to refer, for the purposes of the present judgment, to someof them only: It appears that in the confidential reports for the years 1980 and 1982 of interested parties G.Eleftheriou, Chr. Theocharides, M. Martides and S. Zenios,changes were effected by thecoun30 tersigning officers in a numberof rateable items,with the result that their general assessment was changed from "very good" to "excellent". 65 Lttris J. Eftychiou and Others v. Republic

(1988)The same procedure was followed in respect of the confiden­ tial ieports of interested parties G. Kokou andG. Eleftheriou for the year 1981. Noindicationappears anywhere totheeffect thatbefore effect­ 1 ing r ύ relevant changes the countersigning officers have dis- 5 cusse*' the matter with the reporting officers, and only in some occasu ns there appear reasons for such disagreement in theappropriaL.column, From theconfidential report's file of applicant Chr.Chaberis, it appearsthattheassessments madeinhisconfidential reportsfor 10 the years 1980,1981, 1982 and 1983,were effected by the coun­ tersigning officer contary totheprovisions of regulation 9, above with result that his general assessment was reducedfrom "excel­ lent" to"very good" and thatonly in thereportfor theyear 1983 some reasons areinsertedin theappropriatecolumn. 15 To thesame effect, were thechanges effected in theconfiden­ tial reportof applicantCh. Saparillas for theyear 1983,reducing thus his general assessment from "excellent" to"very good". Also, agreat numberof changes were effected by the counter­ signingofficers inindividual itemseitherinfavour of someof the 20 interested parties ortothedetrimentof someof theapplicantsbut not resulting in thechange of theirgeneral assessment inrespect of the particular year, without having previously discussed the matter with thereporting officers, butIdonotintendreferring to each oneof thereports separately. 25 The effect of the non compliance by countersigning officers with regulation 9 above, has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of The Republic v. Argyrides

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1092 where the following were held at pp. 1098-1099: "Such regulations are notsubsidiary legislation in thestrict sense but have to be strictly complied with. Thedeviation by 66 30 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Eftychiou and Others v. Republic Loris J. thecountersigningofficer from theexpressprovisionsof such regulations is tantamount toan illegality. Moreover, the subjudice decision should be annulled asviolating Article 28 of theConstitution.EverypublicOfficer isentitled toexpect that theprocedureinthepreparation ofconfidential reportscontemplated by the Regulations approved by the Council of Ministersshould bestrictlyadheredtoin allcaseswithoutany differentiation. Any application of the Regulations in a differrent mannerineachparticularcaseviolatestheprinciplethataperson is entitled toequal treatment which is safeguarded under Article28oftheConstitution". Videalsointhisconnection thefollowing cases: (Papamichael v.Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1113; Stylianides v. Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1123; Theophanous v. Republic 15

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1574; Xeros v. Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1322). Following'heapproach adoptedbytheFullBenchofthisCourt inArgyrides case, (supra),Ihavereached theconclusion that,in the present cases too, as the assessments in a great number of 20 confidential report were effected by the countersigning officers contary totheprovisions ofregulation 9, above and in a manner affecting thegeneralpictureofthecandidates,which tantamounts to an illegality and violates the provisions of Article 28 of the Constitution andastheCommission hadrelied on suchreportsin 25 selecting themost suitable candidates for promotion, the subjudicedecision hastobe annulled. ' In the circumstances I consider it unnecessary to embark on - any othergroundraised bycounselinthepresentproceedings. In theresult all above intituled recourses, tried together, suc30 ceed andthesubjudicedecision isherebyannulled; noorderasto · costs. Subjudice decision annulled Noorderas to costs. 67