3 C.L.R. 1988January22 [LORIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION DEMETRAKISSTAVRIDES, Applicant. v. THEREPUBICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 136/83). NaturalJustice—Bias—Howitshouldbeestablished. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidential reports—Preparation of—New reportingofficerconsultingwithcountersigningofficer,whoknewtheofficer concernedandhadactedbeforeascountersigningofficer. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Qualifications—Additionalacademicqualification,notenvisagedasanadvantageintheschemeofservice—Weight. Public Officers—-Promotions—-Seniority—Prevails, ifotherfactorsmore or lessequal. Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Itmaybefoundeitherinthedecisionitselforintherecordsoftheadministration. Theapplicantimpugnsbymeansof thepresentrecoursethedecision whereby thefive interested parties were promoted tothepostof Senior ClericalOfficer intheGeneralClericalStaff. Theapplicantcomplainedthatthereportingofficer for 1981 whohard- 73 Stavrides v. Republic
(1988)ly knew him (having worked with hin. only for a period of 3 months) failed toconsult hispredecessor in respect of thepreceding period of9 months,thathisconfidential reportfortheyear1982wastaintedwithbias, thattheCommissiondisregardedhissuperiorityovertheinterestedparties andmatthesubjudicedecisionisnotdulyreasoned. 5 Themeritof theapplicantemergingfrom theconfidential reportsfor theyears 1979,1980,1981 isbelowthemeritof all5interestedparties. The qualifications oftheapplicantandtheinterestedpartiesaremoreor lessthesamewiththeexceptionof theexaminationsinFrench language passed byapplicant, although samearenot envisaged by theSchemeof 10 Serviceasanadvantage. Theapplicanthasaseniorityofoneyearoverinterestedparties 1 and2 andaseniorityof2yearsovertheremaining. Held,dismissingtherecourse:
(1)Theconfidentialreportof 1981 was prepared after exchange of viewsbetween thereporting officer and the 15 countersigning officer, who,significantly, wasagain thecountersigning officer oftheconfidential reportoftheapplicantfor 1980whentheapplicantwasrated"excellent".
(2)Lackof impartiality mustbeestablished with sufficient certainty, eitherbyfactsemergingfrom relevantadministrativerecordsorbysafein- 20 ferences tobedrawnfrom theexistenceofsuchfacts.Theapplicant failed toestablish bias asregards thereport of 1982,which,inany event,had notbeenplacedbeforetheCommission.
(3)Applicant failed toestablishacaseofstrikingsuperiority.Seniority prevails,if other factors are moreor lessequal.Additional academic 25 qualifications carry littleweight,ifnotenvisagedasanadvantageinthe schemeofservice.
(4)Thereasoning behindanadministrativedecision maybefoundeitherinthedecisionitselforintheofficial recordsrelatedthereto. Recoursedismissed.30 Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Georghiades v.TheRepublic
(1982)3CLA. 16; Agrotis v. EA.C.
(1981)3 C.L.R. 503; 74 3 C.L.R. Stavrides v. Republic Christou v.TheRepublic
(1980)3 C.L.R.437; Soteriadouv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 300; Hjiloannou v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.1041; Partellidesv. TheRepublic
(1969)3C.L.R.480; 5 HjiSavva v.The Republic
(1972)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interestedpartiestothepostofSeniorClericalOfficer intheGeneralClericalStaff inpreferenceandinsteadoftheapplicant. 10 M· Christofides,fortheapplicant. R. Gavrielides,Senior Counsel of the Republic, for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. LORISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantimpugns 15 bymeansof thepresentrecoursethedecisionof therespondent P.S.C.,wherebythefiveinterested partieswerepromoted tothe post of Senior Clerical Officer in theGeneral Clerical Staff, in preference toandinsteadoftheapplicant. The complaints of the applicant maybe grouped under two 20 broadHeadsasfollows: (A) Complaints connected with thepreparation of his confidentialreportsfortheyear 1981 and
- (B)Complaintsinrespectofthesub-judicedecision. InproceedingtoexamineallthesecomplaintsoftheapplicantI 25 wishtomakeitclearatthisearlystage,thatIshallbereferring to thefive interested parties by therespectivenumber with which 75 Loris J. Stavrides v. Republic
(1988)theyhavebeennumberedbytheapplicantinthebodyofthisrecourse. Bearinginmindthatthe"confidential reportsareintermediate actsandtheascertainmentoftheirinvalidity bringstheinvalidityofallsubsequentactsfortheissueofwhichtheactfoundtobe 5 illegal,constitutesalegalprerequisite".{Georghiadesv.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 16atp.28 -Agrotisv.EA.C.
(1981)3 C.L.R.503atp.513).Ishallproceed toexaminefirst thecomplaints inrespect of theconfidential reportsof theapplicant for theyears 1981and 1982. Firsthisconfidential reportfor theyear 1981:Inthisconnection itistheallegation of theapplicant thatthereportingofficer whohardlyknewhim(havingworkedwithhimonlyforaperiod of 3months) failed to consult hispredecessor in respect ofthe, preceding period of 9 monthsduring which "hehad noknow- 15 ledgeaboutapplicant's service."Asaresult,applicantmaintains, thereportingofficer ratedhim(theapplicant)as"good". In thefirst place thereportingofficer for 1981 (Mr.Mavromoustakis) did not rate the applicant as "good" but as "very good"(0-9-3)for 1981:(videconfidential Reportsfileoftheap- 20 plicantmarked "A").Theaforesaidreportingofficer statesclearly (vide Red 137in thePersonalFileof theapplicant-marked Al) thattheconfidentialreportoftheapplicantfor 1981 wascompiled byhimafterexchangeofviewsonthematterwiththethenActing Director-GeneraloftheMinistryofDefencenamelyMy.Konto- 25 zis who wasin aposition toknowtheapplicant very well,and whocountersigned theaforesaid confidentialreportoftheapplicantfortheyear 1981.Inthisconnectionwemustnotloosesight ofthefactthatMr.Kontoziswasagainthecountersigning officer oftheconfidentialreportfortheapplicantfor 1980whentheap- 30 plicantwasrated"excellent"(8-4-0). Asregardsavagueallegationofbiasinthewrittenaddressof theapplicantagainstthereportingofficer inthe1981confidential report,itcanbepositivelysaidthatnonewasestablished. 76 10 3 C.L.R. Stavrides v. Republic Loris J. Comingnowtotheconfidentialreportoftheapplicantforthe year1982;althoughIcoulddisposeofthisissuestraightawaybysaying that the confidential report of the applicant^as well as thoseoftheinterestedpartiesfortheyear 19i[2,-werenot before 5 therespondentP.S.C.whenthesubjudicedecisionwasreached (thesub-judicedecisionwasreachedon 10.1.83whilsttheconfidentialreportoftheapplicantwascompiledandsignedaslateas the5.2.83), yetI havecarefully examined thecomplaint of the applicant inconnection withtheconfidential report for 1982as 10 well.Ihavenotedthecomplaintoftheapplicantand inparticular hisswornaffidavitfiledon24.2.1986imputinglackofimpartialityandbiasagainsttheReportingOfficer whosignedsameatthe sametimeascountersigningofficer. Independentlyofthefactthat theconfidential report of 1982wasnot before the P.S.C. Iam 15 notsatisfied that acaseof biasorlackofimpartiality hasbeen establishedwithsufficient certainty,anditiswellsettledthat"the lack of impartiality must beestablished with sufficient certainty, either by facts emerging from relevant administrative recordsorbysafe inferences tobedrawnfrom theexistenceof 20 such facts "(Christou v.Republic
(1980)3C.L.R.437 atp. 449-videalsointhisconnectionSoteriadouv.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 300).Andintheinstantcasethevaguefacts allegedin para.6oftheaffidavit oftheapplicantwhichallegedlytookplace verylongtimeago,whenthecountersigningofficer wasstillAs25 sistantDistrictOfficer, cannotsupportbiasorimpartiality. For the reasons stated above the complaints grouped under Head(A)above,fail. Ishallnowproceedtoexaminethecomplaintsgroupedunder Head (B) above; these complaints as I was able to apprehend 30 themmaybesub-dividedundertwosub-Heads; 1. Allegedsuperiorityoftheapplicantoverallthefiveinterestedpartiesasregardsmerit,qualifications andseniority. 2.Lackofduereasoningofthesub-judicedecision. 77
(1988)Stavrides v.Republic Loris J. Letusnowseethetruepictureoftheapplicantandthefiveinterestedpartiesasregardsmerit,asittranspiresfromthe respective confidential reports of thelast 3yearsi.e. 1979, 1980and 1981 (Asalreadystatedtheconfidential reportsfortheyear1982 werenotbefore therespondentP.S.C.) Applicant LP. 1 1979= 0-0-12 I.P.2 I.P.3 I.P.4 I.P.5 8-4-0 8-4-0 3-9-0 10-2-0 9-3-0 1980= 8-4-0 8-3-1 8-4-0 9-3-0 11-1-0 8-4-0 1981= 0-9-3 8-4-0 2-10-0 4-8-0 8-4-0 12-0-0 Itisclearfromtheabovetablethatthemeritof the applicant 10 emerging from the confidential reports for the years 1979and 1981 isfarbelowthemeritofall5interestedparties;thebestreport of theapplicant isthatof 1980andeven then,hisratingis belowInterested Parties 3 &4, exactly the same with LP.No. 2 and No. 5, and slightly over LP. No. 1 (Applicant 8-4-0 - 15 LP. No. 1, 8-3-1); Theoverwhelming meritof the interestedpartiesovertheapplicant as itemergesfromtheconfidential reports of thelast 3 yearsisstillbeingenhancedifwetakeintoconsideration the recommendationoftheHeadofthe Departmentwhichwasextend- 20 edtointerestedparties 1,2,4 and5. Asregardsqualifications itisobvious,fromtherelevantpersonalfilesof the applicantandtheinterestedpartiesandthe relevantappendixattachedtotheopposition,thatthequalificationsof theapplicant andtheinterestedpartiesaremoreorlessthesame 25 withtheexceptionoftheexaminationsinFrenchlanguagepassed byapplicant,although samearenotenvisaged bytheSchemeof Serviceasanadvantage. Itisasettledprincipleofadministrativelaw thatan administrativeCourtcannot interveneinordertosetasidethedecisionre- 30 gardingaselectionforpromotion unlessitissatisfied, byanap78 3 C.L.R. Stavrides v. Republic Loris J. plicantin arecourse before it thathewas aneligiblecandidate who was strikingly superior tothose who were selected. Inthe instantcase itisobvious that theapplicanthasfailed toestablish striking superiority over theinterestedparties,asfar asmerit and 5 qualifications areconcerned.Asregards meritonthecontrary the interestedpartiesarebetterrated;I would even say strikingly su periortotheapplicant.Asregardsthequalifications of theappli cantandtheinterestedparties, theyaremore orlessthesamewith an additionalqualification infavour of theapplicant,notably ex10 aminationsinFrench.Butasitwas heldby theFullBeachof this Court inHjiloannouv. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041 atpp. 1046-1047: 15 20 "Possession of academicqualifications additionaltothosere quiredby theschemeof service, whicharenotspecified in the schemeof serviceasanadvantage,shouldnotweighgready in themindoftheCommissionwhoshoulddecideinselectingthe bestcandidateonthetotalityofthecircumstancesbeforethem. Additional academic qualifications tothoseprovided by the schemeof servicedonotindicateby themselves astriking superiority. (See Elli Chr. Korai andAnother v. The Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation
(1973)3C.L.R.546;Andreas D. Georghakis v. TheRepublic,
(1977)3C.L.R. 35; Cleanthis Cleanthous v. TheRepublic
(1978)3C.L.R.320). InordertocompletethepictureIshall deal very briefly with 25 seniority althoughitiswellsettledthatseniority oughttoprevail if allcriteriaaremoreorlessequal,(videPartellides v. TheRe public
(1969)3C.L.R.480),whichis notthepresentcase. Theapplicantsaswellasthefive interestedpartieswerehold ing thepostof ClericalOfficer priortothesub-judice decisionto 30 which they were allpromoted on Ι,.Π.1981.Theprecedingpost is thepostof Clerk 1stGradetowhichtheapplicantwaspromo tedon 1.5.70whilstInterestedParties 1and2were so promoted on 1.6.71and theremaining threeon 1.5.72;thustheapplicant hasa seniority of oneyear over Interestedparties 1and2anda 35 seniority of 2yearsover the remaining. 79 Loris J. Stavrides v. Republic
(1988)ConcludingonthisIholdtheviewthatthesub-judicedecision wasreasonablyopentotherespondentCommission. Asregardsthelastcomplaint,notablyreasoning,itiswellsettled that "reasoning behind anadministrativedecision maybe found eitherinthedecisionitselforintheofficial records related •5 thereto" (HjiSawa v. TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R. 174atp. 205). In the instant caseI holdtheview that thedecision itself provides the necessary reasoningof an administrative decision and atthesametimethematerialintheadministrativefilessupportsthereasoningafforded bytherespondentCommissionena- 10 blingunhinderedjudicialscrutiny. Foralltheabovereasonspresentrecoursefailsandisaccordinglydismissed.Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 15 80