(1988)1988March29 ITRIANTAFYLLIDES,P.,MALACHTOS,DEMETRIADES,SAWIDES, KOURRIS, JJ.] LEONIDASLEONIDOUANDANOTHER, Appellants -Applicants, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealsNos. 669,670). Public Officers—Promotions—Officer serving onprobation on a permanent post—Eligible for promotion —The Public Service Law, 1967 (Law331 67), section 44. Public Officers—Promotions—HeadofDepartment—Recommendations of— Cannotbedisregardedwithoutgivingcogentreasons. 5 Public Officers—Promotions—Striking superiority—Six andahalfyears seniority over interested party, who, however, was recommendedfor promotionby theHeadoftheDepartment—Promotionofinterestedparty open to the Commission. Public Officers—Promotions—Qualifications—Scheme of service—Three years service in apost—In the circumstances such service need not have been continuous. TherecourseofappellantLeonidouagainstall interestedparties,except interested party Neophytou, was dismissed on the ground thatall concernedweremoreorlessequalinmerit,qualifications andseniority. AppellantTrapelideshadonlychallengedthepromotionofNeophytou. TheappellantswereseniortoNeophytou,butthelatter,wasrecommended forpromotionby theheadoftheDepartment. 654 15 JQ 3 C.L.R. Leonidou & Another v. Republic Theappellantsargued thattheywerestrikingly superiortoNeophytou andthatNeophytouwasnotqualified forpromotionbecause(a)hehadno threeyears"Continuous"serviceinhispreviouspostand(b)hewasservinginatemporarycapacity. 5 Held,dismissing theappeals,SavvidesandKourris,JJ.dissentingas regardsthedismissalvis-a-visinterestedpartyNeophytouoftheappealof appellantLeonidou:
(1)ThefindingsandconclusionsofthetrialCourtconcerningallinterestedpartiesexceptinterestedpartyNeophytou,arecorrect. 10
(2)NeitherthePublicServiceLaw(Law33/67),northerelevanttothe postschemeofservicerequireacontinuousserviceforthreeyears,norwas interested party Neophytou serving in atemporary capacity but wasthe holderonprobationof apermanentpostinthepublicserviceand,thus,he waseligibleforpromotionundersection44ofLaw33/67. 15
(3)InthelightoftherecommendationoftheHeadoftheDepartment,it wasopentotheCommissiontopromoteinterestedpartyNeophytou.Itisa wellestablishedprincipleofadministrativelawthattherecommendationsof theHeadof theDepartmentcannotbedisregarded withoutgivingcogent reasoningfordoingso. Appealsdismissed. Noorderastocosts. ^ Casesreferredto: t Theodossiou v.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C. 44; ChrtstouandOthersv. TheRepublic,4R.S.C.C.1; 25 Constantinouv. TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R. 551; Frangosv. TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R. 312; Republicv. Haris
(1985)3C.L.R.106. Appeals. Appeals against thejudgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court 655 Leonidou & Another v. Republic
(1988)of Cyprus (A. Loizou, J.) given on the 25th September, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 556/84 and 557/84)*, whereby appellants'recoursesagainst thedecision of thePublic ServiceCommission topromotetheinterested partiestothepost of Co-operative Officer, 1st Grade in the Department of CooperativeDevelopment weredismissed. G.Triantafyllides,fortheappellant. A. Vladimirou, for therespondent. Cur. adv.vult. TRIANTANTAFYLLIDES P.:Thejudgmentof themajority, 10 thatismyself,MalachtosandDemetriadesJJ.,willbedelivered byDemetriadesJ. DEMETRIADES J.: Both appellants complain against the judgment of a Judge of this Court, by which their recourses against the decision of the respondent Commission not topromotethemtothepostof Co-OperativeOfficer 1stGrade,in the 15 Department of Co-Operative Development as from the 1stAugust, 1984, were dismissed (see Leonidou v. The Republic,
(1986)3C.L.R. 1647andTrapelides v.TheRepublic,
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1861). The appellant in Revisional Appeal No. 669 Mr. Leonidou 20 complainsagainstthepromotionofallinterestedpartieswhilstthe appellantinRevisionalAppealNo.670Mr.Trapelidescomplains only againstthepromotion ofinterested partyKyriacosNeophytou. AsregardsthecomplaintofMr.Leonidouagainstthepromo- 25 tion of the interested parties,the trial Judge found that hehad failed toestablish thathewasstrikingly superiortothem,arequisitenecessaryfortheCourttointerfereinthesubjudicedecision; that asregardsqualifications, merit andseniority,Mr.Leonidou wasmoreorlessthesametoallinterestedparties,exceptMr.Ne- ™ ophytou over whom he was senior by approximately six anda half years; that he was not recommended for promotion by the HeadofhisDepartment andthathisseniorityoverMr.Neophytoucouldnotprevail,allotherthingsnotbeingequal. * (Reported in
(1986)3 CLJi. 1647 and
(1986)3 C.LH. 1861). 656 3 CX.R. 5 Leonidou & Another v. Republic Demetriades J. Having heard the arguments of counsel and having gone through the record in the file of this recourse, we have come to theconclusion that thefindings andconclusionsofthetrialCourt, concerning all interested partiesexcept interested party Neophytou, are correct and that, therefore, the appeal of Mr. Leonidou mustbedismissed asagainst thoseinterested parties. We nowcome tothecomplaint of both appellants against the promotion ofinterested party Neophytou. 10 The argument put forward by counsel for the two appellants that the respondent Commission was wrong in promoting Mr. Neophytou, was based on thefollowing twopoints(a) theinterested party did not satisfy therequirements of the scheme of service in that hedid not have threecontinuous years of service,and 15 20 25 30 (b)hewas serving ina temporary capacity and, therefore, the appellants, who were permanent public officers, ought to have been preferred. Our answer to the arguments put forward in support of these issues,isthatasneitherthePublic ServiceLaw (Law 33/67),nor the relevant to the post scheme of service require a continuous service for three years,norwasinterested party Neophytou servingin atemporary capacity but was theholderon probation ofa permanentpostinthepublic serviceand,thus,hewaseligiblefor promotion under section 44of Law 33/67,it was,in thelight of the recommendation of the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, whois thedepartmental Head of the Office inwhich Neophytou was employed, open to the respondent Commission to promote Neophytou. Itisawellestablished principleof administrative law that therecommendations of theHead of theDepartment cannot bedisregarded without givingcogentreasoningfor doing so(see Theodossiou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 44). Before concluding,wemustmention thatNeophytou hadfor a 657 DemetriadesJ. Leonidou &Another v.Republic
(1988)numberofyearsservedinthepostthathewasholdingatthetime ofhispromotion andthatalthoughhehadresignedfrom theserviceand waslaterre-employed, onecannot say that hehadlost hisexperience incarryingoutthedutiesrequired bythepostto whichhewaspromoted. 5 Intheresult,wehavecometotheconclusionthatbothappeals must bedismissed but,inthecircumstances,wemake noorder astocosts. SAVVIDES J.: These two appeals are directed against the judgmentsofoneoftheJudgesofthisCourtsittinginthefirstin- 10 stanceintheexerciseoftheoriginaljurisdiction ofthisCourtby which he dismissed the recourses of the appellants underNos. 556/84 and 557/84 challenging thedecision of the respondent Public Service Commission topromote theinterested partiesto thepostofCo-operative Officer, 1stGrade,intheDepartmentof 15 Co-operative Development asfrom 1stAugust, 1984,in preferencetoandinsteadoftheapplicants. Thesetwoappealswereheardtogetheraspresentingcommon questionsof law and fact andasthedecision bywhich thepromotionofallinterestedpartieswaseffected isoneandthesame. 20 Bytheirrecourses both appellants werechallenging thepromotionoftheeleveninterestedpartiestothepostofCo-operative Officer, 1stGrade.Inthecourseoftheproceedingshoweverbefore the trial Court the second appellant withdrew hisrecourse againsttenof themandrestricted hisprayeronly againstoneof 25 themnamelyKyriacosNeophytou. Ineed notembark onthefacts whichledtothepromotionof theinterestedpartiesastheyaresufficiently statedinthefirstinstancejudgment of the learned trial Judgein CaseNo.556/84 (see:Leonidouv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1647). ThelearnedtrialJudge,havingdealtinhiselaboratejudgments withallargumentsadvancedbycounselforapplicantsinbothre658 30 3C.L.R. 5 ,Q 25 30 35 Leonidou &Another v.Republic SavvidesJ. coursescametotheconclusion,inLeonidouv.TheRepublic(supra)atpp. 1659,1660that"itwasreasonablyopentotherespondentCommission topromotetheinterestedpartiesinsteadofthe applicantwhohasfailed toestablishanystrikingsuperioritynecessaryforjustifying anyinterference withthesubjudicedecision whichwasinthecircumstancestakenproperlyandinaccordance with thelaw."In CaseNo.557/84(Trapelides v.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 1861,his conclusion at p. 1867,wasthat "the applicanthasfailed toestablish anystrikingsuperioritywhichis necessaryinorderthattheCourtmayinterfere withthesubjudice decisionwhichwasinthecircumstancesreasonablyopentothe respondentCommissionwasdulyreasonedandwastakeninaccordancewiththelawthatincludesthegeneralprinciplesofAdministrativeLaw."Asaresultthelearned trialJudgedismissed bothrecourses. Ihavenoreason todisagree withthefindingsof thelearned trialJudgeconcerningthefateofcaseNo.557/84thatonthematerialbeforehimtheapplicantinthatcase-appellantinRevisional AppealNo.670-failedtoestablishanystrikingsuperiorityover interestedpartyKyriacosNeophytouinorderthattheCourtmay interferewiththesubjudicedecisionwhichwasreasonablyopen totherespondentCommissionwasdulyreasonedandwastaken in accordance with the law.I,therefore, agree with mylearned brothersofthisBenchthatthereisnomeritinthesecondAppeal (R.A.670)andthatitshouldbedismissed. IcomenexttoconsiderRevisionalAppealNo.669.1haveno reasoninthisappealeithertodisagreewiththeothermembersof this Bench that the appeal should bedismissed to theextentit concernstenoftheinterestedpartiesbutIdisagreewiththemajorityofthemthattherecourseoftheappellant,applicantinCase No.556/84,should havebeendismissed in sofar asitconcerns thepromotionofinterestedpartyKyriacosNeophytou.Concerningthepromotionofthisinterestedparty,Iagreewithmybrother JudgeA.Kourris,whosejudgment Ihadtheopportunity toperuse,thatthesubjudicedecisionoftherespondentPublicService Commission shouldbeannulledforthereasonselaboratelymen659 Savvides J. Leonidou &Another v. Republic
(1988)tionedinhisjudgment. ThelearnedtrialJudge,onthematerialbeforehim,indealing withthemeritofappellantLeonidasLeonidou,applicantincase No.556/84found asfollowsatp. 1656: "Fromtheoverallpicturepresentedbytheparties,Ibelieve thattheapplicantisnotbetter,butranksequaltotheinterested 5 parties." Concerning qualifications the learned trialJudge found that both the appellant and the interested party were more or less equal. Onthequestionofsenioritytheappellantwasseniorbyatleast JQ 6 1/2 years in comparison with interested party KyriacosNeophytou.Thelearned trialJudgeinaffirming thesubjudicedecisionoftherespondentPublicServiceCommissionexplainedthe reasonswhytheseniorityoftheappellant shouldnothavetipped thescalesinhisfavour, asfollows(seepp.1657-1658): 15 "Asregards qualification, merit, seniority, he is more or lessthesametoallinterested partiesexceptNeophytouover whomheisseniorbyaboutsixandhalfyears,butcontraryto allinterestedpartieshehasnotbeenrecommendedforpromotionandhisseniorityoverNeophytoucannotthusprevail,all 20 otherthingsnotbeingequal.Inanycaseinaccordancetowell establishedprinciplesofadministrativelawtherecommendationsoftheHeadofDepartmentcannotbelightlydisregarded withoutgiving cogentreasoningfordoingso.(SeeTheodossiouv.Republic,2R.S.C.C.44)." IagreewiththelearnedtrialJudgethattherecommendations of theHeadoftheDepartmentcannotbelightlydisregarded as statedinTheodossiouv.TheRepublic(supra).Therearehowever circumstances in which suchrecommendations cannot have considerableeffectontheselection andappointmentofthemost ™ suitablecandidates,suchasthosementionedinChristouandothersv.TheRepublic4.R.S.C.C. 1in which the following were statedatpp. 5,6: 660 25 3 C.L.R. 5 Leonidou &Another v. Republic SavvidesJ. "Coming now tothequestion of thevalidityof theappoint ments of theinterested parties theCourt should observe first thatinthis Case itcannotreallybesaidthattherecommenda tionsof theHeadof Departmentcouldhavehadany considerableeffect, because theHeadof Departmentcouldonlyrecom mend and did recommend the Applicants, whom heknew, without beinginaposition tostateanything aboutthe suitabili ty of thegreat number of theother candidates, whom hedid notknow at all." 10 Thefactsof thepresent casefall within thedecision ofChristou andOthers (supra).Intherelevant minutes of themeeting of therespondentCommission atwhich thesubjudice decision was taken we read thefollowing concerning therecommendations of theHeadof theDepartment 15 "Στη συνεδρίασηήτανπαρώνκαιοΔιοικητήςΣυνεργα τικήςΑνάπτυξηςκ. Ερωτόκριτος Χλωρακιώτης. Αυτός ανάφερετα εξής: 20 Βάσει των όσων έχει υπόψητουκαιτωνκριτηρίωντου νόμου, συστήνει χωρίς ενδοιασμό τους πιο κάτωδέκα υπαλλήλους: 10. Νεοφύτου Κυριάκο, ο οποίος είναι παρά πολύ καλόςυπάλληλοςκαιυπηρετείστη Λευκωσία. 'Οσον αφοράτοΛεωνίδα Λεωνίδου, οοποίοςυπηρετεί στη Λευκωσία, δεν έχει προσωπικήγνώση τηςαπόδοσης του,γιατίαυτόςαπουσίαζε γιατέσσεραχρόνιαστο εξωτε ρικόκαι επέστρεψε κατάτατέλητου 1983. Δεν έχει δοκι μαστείκαιδενυπάρχουναποδεικτικά στοιχεία" 661 SavvidesJ. Leonidou & Another v.Republic
(1988)andinEnglish: "Present at the meeting was the Commissioner of CooperativeDevelopmentMr.ErotokritosChlorakiotis. Hementionedthefollowing: Onthebasisofwhathehasinhismindandthecriteriapro- 5 videdbylaw,herecommendswithouthesitationthefollowing tencandidates. 10.Neophytou Kyriacoswhoisaverygoodemployeeand servesinNicosia. Asfar asLeonidasLeonidou isconcerned,who servesin Nicosia, he has no personal knowledge of his performance, becausehehadbeenabsentabroadforfouryearsandreturned abouttheendof 1983.Hehasnotbeentriedandnoevidential materialexists." Itisclearfrom theabovethatthecaseisnotoneinwhichthe Head of the Department expressly commented on some of the candidates andmadenocommentsaboutothers,allofwhomhe knew,fromwhich it could beinferred that for those not commentedupon "therewasnothingtobesaidintheirfavour andit wasnothisintentiontorecommendthemforpromotion"(asstatedinConstantinouv.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R. 551). Inthecircumstancesofthepresentcasetherecommendationof theHeadoftheDepartmentcouldnothavesuchconsiderable effectontheselectionofthemostsuitablecandidates(Theodossiou v.TheRepublic (supra)) astooverride thestriking seniorityof theappellant over interested party KyriacosNeophytou andtip thescalesinhisfavour onceinmeritandqualifications theywere 662 3 C.L.R. Leonidou & Another v. Republic Savvides J. moreorlessequal. 5 Intheresult R.A.669succeedsinsofar asthepromotionof interestedpartyKyriacosNeophytouisconcernedandthesubjudicedecision declared null andvoid.Theappealisdismissedin so farasitrelatestotheremaininginterested parties.Imakeno orderforcosts.Revisional AppealNo.670isdismissed withno orderforcosts. KOURRIS,J.: Revisional AppealNo.669:Thisisanappeal against thejudgment ofoneoftheJudgesoftheSupremeCourt 10 sittinginthefirstinstance,whereby hedismissed therecourseof theappellantagainstthedecisionofthePublicServiceCommissiontopromotetheinterestedpartiesinpreference andinsteadof theappellant. Iholdtheviewthattheappellantcansuceedonlyinrespectof 15 thepromotion of interested party Kyriakos Neophytou andthat thereisnomeritinhisappealagainsttheother interestedparties, forthereasonswhichIwillsetouthereinbelow. 20 25 30 Atthetimeof thedecisionof thePublicServiceCommission theappellant andtheteninterested partieswereholdingthepost of Co-operative Officer, 2ndGrade and by thesubjudicedecision the interested parties were promoted to the post of CooperativeOfficer, 1stGradeasfrom 1.8.84. Learnedcounselfortheappellantinarguingtheappealbefore usrelied on thefollowing points:
(1)Theconfidential reportof theappellant for theyear 1983should nothavebeen takeninto accountbecauseitcovered2months;
(2)theHeadofDepartment countersignedtheconfidential reportoftheappellantwhenhedid notknowtheappellantandconsequentlyitwasillegal;
(3)theinterested party did not satisfy theprerequisites of the schemeof serviceinthathedid nothavethreecontinuousyearsofservice; and
(4)theinterestedparty wasservinginatemporarycapacity and,therefore, theappellant, whowasapermanent public officer,shouldhavebeen preferred. 663 Κourris J. Leonidou & Another v. Republic
(1988)Ihaveconsidered thesepointsandIaminagreementwiththe resultreached by thetrialCourt. With regard tothefirstpoint, it was submitted thattheconfi dential report of the appellant for the year 1983 is contrary to s.45(l)of thePublic Service Law 1967 (Law No.33 of 1967) as 5 theappellant hasbeenassessedonly asfrom1stNovember, 1983 tothe31st December, 1983,thatis,twomonths,andthat, there fore, suchconfidential reportwas erroneously taken intoconsid eration. Section45
(1)of thelaw provides thatconfidential reports are 10 preparedonall officers annually andthatthey "shall besubmitted notlaterthanthe31st day of January each year", andnothing is provided eitherinthelaw ortheGeneral Orderspreserved byvir tueof s.86(l)of theaforesaid law thatthewords "annual", "an nually," haveanyothermeaning thantheirordinary meaning, that 15 is, "for theyear", "yearly".Thereis noprovision thatthe annual reporttobevalidmust cover nolessthan 12months. Therefore, theconfidential reportwasrightlytakeninto account. Thesecond pointraised is thattheHeadof Departmentcoun tersigned theconfidential reportof theappellant when hedidnot 20 know himandconsequently was illegal,andas such vitiated the decision.Idonotthinkthereismeritinthisargumentbecausethe HeadofDepartmentmayhavereceived information from hisinfe riorofficers before countersigning theconfidential report Regarding thethirdpointwhere it was claimed thattheinter- 25 ested party did notsatisfy therequirement of theschemeof ser viceof "at least three years' service in thepost of Co-operative Officer, 2ndGrade",because hehadonly 5monthsserviceprior to thesubjudice decision andthathis prior service between 1st February, 1969 to 10thSeptember, 1972 was wronglytakeninto ~ 0 consideration, Ifind that this argument must fail also because there is noprovision in the relevant scheme of service thatthe years of service should be continuous.The scheme of service merely statesthattheserviceshouldbeatleast threeyears. 664 3 C.L.R. Leonidou &Another v.Republic Kourris J. The fourth point raised is that the appellant should havebeen preferred for thepromotion ashewasservingon apermanent basiswhereastheinterested party wasan unestablished officer becausehewasholdingapermanent postinatemporary capacity. 5 It should be noted that the interested party is not an unestablished officer serving inatemporary capacity but wasinpointof fact before the Subjudice promotion the holder of a permanent post in the public service albeit on probation and as such hewas qualified for promotion unders.44 of thelaw. 10 Counsel for theappellantfinally argued before usthatthePublic Service Commission exercised its discretion in a defective mannerinpromoting theinterested partiesinstead of theappellant and that the trial Judge erred in holding that it was reasonably open totherespondent Commission toreach thesubjudicedecision. 15 With regard totheinterested parties,with theexception ofinterested partyKyriakos Neophytou, Iamof theviewthat thedecision of the respondent Commission was taken properly andin . accordance with the law and that it was reasonably open toit to 20 promote theinterested parties instead of theappellant who failed toestablish any striking superiority necessary tojustify anyinterference with the subjudice decision. I shall, therefore, confine myjudgment tothepromotion of interested party KyriakosNeophytou to whom I shall refer in this Judgment as the interested 25 3Q PartyAppellant entered the public service on 15.9.1977 when he was appointed as Assistant Co-operative Officer and this title changed toCo-operative Officer, 2ndGradeon 1.1.1981.Appellant, from 29.12.1979 to 31.10.1983 was on educational leave studying economics in theUniversity of Bonn but hedid notobtain any degree, having followed only six semesters out of the twelve semesters. The interested party on 15.11.1961 was Auditor of Co665. KourrisJ. Leonidou & Another v.Republic
(1988)operative Societies in the Audit and Supervision Fund. On 1.2.1969he was appointed in thepublic service,in theDepartmentofCo-operativeDevelopmentasAssistantCo-operative Officer, whereheserved until 10.10.1972 when heresigned.From 1stJanuary, 1980,untilJanuary 1984heagainworked asAudi- 5 torofCo-operativeSocietiesandon 14.2.1984hewasagainappointedasapublicofficer intheDepartmentofCo-operativeDevelopmenttothepostofCo-operativeOfficer, 2ndGrade. Asregards merit, asitappearsfrom theconfidential reports, appellant israted as "very good"for bothyears 1977and 1983. , Q Ontheotherhand,therearenoreportsfor interested partyNeophytou becausehewasservingonprobationandtheconfidential reportsin theform of six-monthlyreportswhich arerequired to be submitted on every officer on probation as Neophytou was, wasnotpreparedbecausehehadonly5 months'servicefromhis appointment in1984. InthecaseofFrangosv.TheRepublic,
(1970)3C.L.R. 312, it washeldthat theabsenceofaconfidential reportwasconsidered tobenot afactor precluding anofficer from beingconsideredforpromotion. 20 TheHeadof Department recommended forpromotion theinterestedpartyand hedid notmakeanycommentswithregardto theappellant becausehedid notknowhimpersonallyandhedid notknowhisperformance. Thelearned trialJudgeconcluded thatitwasreasonablyopen 25 totherespondent Commissiontopromotetheinterestedpartyinstead of the applicant who has failed to establish the requisite striking superiority necessaryinordertojustify any interference by the Court in the subjudice decision because he was of the view thatasregardsqualifications andmerits,theappellant and 30 interested party weremoreorlessequal,buttheinterestedparty hasbeenrecommended bytheHeadofDepartmentforpromotion whereasappellant hasnotbeenrecommended forpromotionand thushisseniorityof6!&years overtheinterestedpartycouldnot ~prevail. 666 3C.L.R. 5 10 15 2" 25 30 35 Leonidou & Anotherv.Republic KourrisJ. Inaccordancewiththewell-establishedprinciplesofadministrativelaw,therecommendationsoftheHeadofDepartmentcannotbelightlydisregarded withoutgivingreasoningfordoingso. (SeeTheodossiou v.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C.44;Republic v. Haris,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 106). It should be noted that in the presentcasetheHeadofDepartmentrecommendedforpromotion theinterestedpartybutheexpressednoopinionregardingappellantbecausehehadnopersonalknowledgeofhisperformanceas the appellant was absent for four years abroad on educational leaveandreturnedtowardstheendof 1983.Therefore,itisnota casewheretheHeadofDepartmentexpresslycommentsonsome officers anddoesnotcommentonotherswheretheinference to bedrawnisthatforthosenotcommentedupontherewasnothing tobesaid in their favour andit wasnot hisintention torecommend themfor promotion. (See Constantinou v.The Republic,
(1980)3C.L.R.551.) Ithinkthatthefactsofthepresentcasefall withinthedecision ofChristou andOthers v.TheRepublic, 4R.S.C.C. 1,whereit washeldthattherecommendationsofaHeadofDepartmenton membersofhisstaff applyingforappointment tovacantpostsin thepublicservicecouldnothaveconsiderableeffect ontheselectionand appointment bythePublic Service Commission ofthe mostsuitablecandidatesfor suchpostsiftherewereothercandidates,also,whowerenotknowntosuchHeadofDepartment Thesumup:Appellantandinterested partyhavemoreorless thesamequalifications,theinterestedpartyhasnoconfidentialreports,buttheapplicantisseniortotheinterestedpartybysixand ahalfyearsandthequestionthatfallsfordecisioniswhetherthe recommendationsoftheHeadofDepartmentinfavouroftheinterestedparty,inthecircumstancesofthecaseinhandwhereaccordingtothecaselawcouldnothaveanyconsiderableeffectcan override the striking seniority of the appellant as promotions should be considered on the basis of merit, qualifications and seniority,pursuanttotheprovisionsofs.44ofthePublicService Law, 1967. 667 KourrisJ. Leonidou & Another v.Republic
(1988)IamoftheviewthatiftheHeadofDepartmentrecommended forpromotiontheinterestedpartyandkeptsilentabouttheappellantinthesenseof thedecisionofConstantinouv.TheRepublic (supra),i.e.thataninferencecouldbedrawnthathedidnotrecommend the appellant because he had nothing to sayin hisfa- 5 vour,thenitwouldhavebeenreasonablyopentotherespondent Commissiontopromotetheinterestedpartyinsteadoftheappellant.But,inthepresentcasetheHeadofDepartmentdidnotsay anythingabouttheappellantnotbecausehehadnothingtosayin hisfavour, but becausehedidnotknowhimandconsequently, «, hisrecommendationsinfavouroftheinterestedpartycannotbear considerable effect on the selection and appointment bytherespondentCommission of themostsuitablecandidateandcannot prevail over the striking seniority of the appellant by6lh years overtheintetestedparty. Inthelightoftheabove,IholdtheviewthatitwasnotreasonablyopentotherespondentCommissiontopromotetheinterestedpartyinsteadoftheappellantwhohadestablishedstrikingseniority necessary for justifying interference with the subjudice decision. 21 Intheresult,thisappealsucceedsinsofarasthepromotionof interested party Kyriakos Neophytou isconcerned,whichisdeclared tobenull and void andof noeffect whatsoever anditis dismissedinsofarasitrelatestotheremaininginterestedparties withnoorderforcosts. ^ RevisionalAppealNo.670: ThisisanappealagainsttheJudgmentofoneoftheJudgesof theSupreme Court sitting inthefirstinstance,whereby hedismissed therecourse of the appellant against thedecision of the PublicService Commission topromote theinterestedpartiesin preferenceandinsteadoftheappellant. Therecourse wasoriginallyfiledagainstall 11officers promotedtothepostof Co-operativeOfficer, 1stGrade,asaresult / 668 3C.L.R. Leonidou &Another v.Republic KourrisJ. ofthesubjudicedecision,butitwassubsequently withdrawnas againstallexceptinterestedpartyKyriakosNeophytou,andconsequently this appeal isagainst thepromotion of theinterested partyKyriakosNeophytou. 5 Learnedcounselfortheappellantinarguingtheappeal before usraised thefollowing points:
(1)thattheinterested partywho wasservingonatemporarybasis,waswrongly preferred tothe appellantwhowasservingonapermanent basis;
(2)thattheinterestedpartydidnotsatisfy therequirementoftheschemeofser10 viceof "atleast3years'serviceinthepostof Co-operative Officer, 2nd grade", because his prior service from 1st February, 1969to 10thSeptember, 1972,waswronglytakenintoaccount. Withregardtothefirstpoint,itshouldbenotedthatNeophytouwasneither anunestablished officer norwasheservingina 15 temporarycapacity.Hewas,inpointoffactbeforethesubjudice decisiontheholderofapermanentpost(OrdinaryBudget)inthe publicservice,albeitonprobationandthereisnoprovisioninthe Public ServiceLaw, 1967(LawNo.33/67) precluding suchan officerfrombeingeligibleforpromotionunders.4thereof.This 20 point,therefore,mustfail. t 25 ^ 30 • Withregardtothesecondpointraised,itwasclaimedthatthe interested partdid not satisfy therequirement of the schemeof serviceof"atleast3years'serviceinthepostofCo-operative Officer, 2ndGrade,becausehehadonly5months'servicepriorto thesubjudicedecisionandthathispriorservicebetween 1stFebruary, 1969- 10thSeptember, 1972waswronglytakenintoconsideration.Ifindthatthisargumentmustfail alsobecausethereis noprovision inrelevant schemeof servicethattheyearsofserviceshouldbe"continuous".Theschemeofservicemerelystates thattheserviceshouldbeatleast3years. CounselfortheappellantfinallyarguedbeforeusthatthePublicServiceCommissionexerciseditsdiscretion inawrongmannerinpromotingtheinterestedpartyinsteadoftheappellantand thatthetrialJudgeerredinholdingthatitwasreasonablyopento 669 KourrisJ. Leonidou &Another v.Republic
(1988)therespondentCommisiontoreachthesubjudicedecision. Asregardsmerit,theappellantisratedas"verygood"forboth years 1982and 1983.Ontheotherhand,therearenoreportsfor interested party due to the fact that hewasappointed as aCooperative Officer, 2nd Grade on 15.2.84,and consequently the 5 six-monthlyconfidential reportwasnotreadyashehasserved5 monthsonlyfromthedate of hisappointment to the saidpost. But,thisisnotafactor precluding anofficerfrombeingconsidered for promotion (Frangos v.The Republic),
(1970)3 C.L.R. Theappellantisseniortotheinterestedpartybysixandahalf years, but as regards qualifications they have more or lessthe same. TheHeadofDepartmentrecommended bothappellantandinterestedparty for promotion tothepostinquestion,buthisrec- 15 ommendationswithregardtotheinterestedpartyarestronger. Inviewofthematerialbefore thePublicServiceCommission, which was also before the learned trial Judge,rightlythe trial Judgeheldthat theappellant hasfailed toestablish anystriking superioritywhichisnecessaryinordertojustify anyinterference 20 by theCourt with the subjudice decision which wasin thecircumstances reasonably open to the respondent Commission in holding that the stronger recommendation for promotion tothe post in question in favour of the interested party could prevail overtheseniorityoftheappellant. 25 Inthesecircumstances,theappeal,therefore, mustfail andis herebydismissed withnoorderforcosts. Appealsdismissedbymajority. Noorderasto costs. 670