(1988)1988May10 [A.LOIZOU,P.J INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION DEMETRIOSPAPADOPOULOS, Applicant, v. THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 671/86). Collective organs—Composition—Change, byparticipation ofmembersnot participatinginearliermeetingorbytheabsenceofmembersparticipating inthefirstmeeting—No validdecisioncanbetaken, unlesswholeprocess repeatedinthenewmeeting. PublicOfficers—Transfers—DivisionalEngineerofPaphos,holdingthepost g ofSeniorExecutiveEngineer,transferredtoNicosia—Complaintthatsuch transferconstitutesademotioninthathewillloosethetitle "DivisionalEngineer"—Complaint untenable—Hisstatusremains thesame—The title "Divisional"isdescriptive. PublicOfficers—Transfers—Thefromtime totimetransferfromonepostto JQ anotheroroneplacetoanother—Itcannotbeconsideredashamperingthe discretionofthe Commission orasoffendinganyprincipleofadministrativelaw. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearinthejudgmentoftheCourt Recoursedismissed. jg Noorderastocosts. 952 3 C.L.R. Papadopoulos v. P.S.C.. ,Casejeferredto: • ' Decision1035
(1957)oftheGreekCouncilofState. · , .• , Recourse. 5 Recourseagainst thedecision oftherespondent totransfer applicantfromPaphostoNicosia. L. Clerides,for the applicant A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult 0 - 0 A. LOIZOU P. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant a SeniorExecutive Engineer serving until then astheDivisional Engineer ofPaphos, seeks adeclarationof theCourt that theactand/ordecision of therespondent Commission bywhich hewastransferred from PaphostoNicosia asfrom 22nd September 1986isnull andvoid and with nolegal effect The Director of thePublicWorksDepartment byletter dated the 28th July 1986made a submission for the transfer of theapplicant from Paphos toNicosia·inordertotakeoverthedutiesof Head of the Section of Workshop and Supervision. He attached theretocopy of aletter of the applicant dated the 15th July 1986 with which he was putting forward various family and service reasons for his non transfer. Submissions for transfers of another three Senior Executive Engineers of the Department were alsc madebytheDirectoron thesamedate.(Appendices 1 and2). ,5 • -i The Respondent Commission at itsmeeting of the5th August 1986 after examining the four submissions, considered that the Director of theDepartment should beinvited tocomment on the representations of the officers affected (Appendix 3) which the Director did by letter dated the 12th August 1986 (Appendix 5} 953 A. Loizou P. Papadopoulos v. P.S.C.
(1988)stating thatthegrounds raised by theapplicant in his letterof the 15thJuly 1986 were notconsidered sufficient andmaterial sothat hewould change hisrecommendationfor thetransfer of the appli cant and he suggested thattheobjections might be dismissed. It was further mentioned in the said letter of theDirector that the 5 transfer of theapplicant was sought for themoreorderly and effi cientfunctioning of theDepartmentandtherewas noquestion of discrimination. TheRespondentCommission atitsmeeting of the 14th August 1986 haying examined all thematerial placed before it,including therepresentations of theapplicantand theotherthreepublic offi cers and therelevant views of theDirector,decided to effect the transfer of all four officers including theapplicant in the interests of the service. Copies of therelevant minutesof theRespondent Commission have been produced as Appendices 3 and 6 and I neednotreproducethemhere verbatim. IQ •,c As against this decision of theRespondent Commission which was communicated to theapplicant by their letter dated the 16th August 1986 (Appendix 7), the applicant filed the present re course. Itis thecase for theapplicant thatthesaid decision constitutes . an adverse transfer notmadeon accountof theexigencies of the service because by being transferred he was in effect demoted having lost the title of the Divisional Engineer which he had in Paphos,his title being limited tothatof the SeniorExecutive En- ~ς gineer. It was further claimed that the transfer of the applicant was arbitrary and contrary toLaw and itdid not take intoconsi deration,thattheexigencies of theservicecould be better served by theapplicant continuing tobe postedat Paphos.Moreover the guidelines for transfer by rotation does not give to the Respon dentCommission thepossibility toexercise itsdiscretionary pow eronthebasisof theexigencies of the servicethatexistfromtime totime. Finally it was argued that thecomposition of theRespondent 954 20 3 CX.R. 5 JO 15 20 •*" 35 Papadopoulos v. P.S.C. A.Loizou P. Commissionwasdefective inasmuch asitsmembersMessrsPapaxenpfontos andXenopouloswereabsent atthefirst meetingof the Respondent Commission, that is the meeting of the 5th August 1986 and that at the meeting of the 14th August 1986 its Chairman wasabsent,when theCommission composedoftheremainingfour members,decided toactinaccordancewith s. 11
(1)of thePublic ServiceLaws 1967to 1986andchoseMr. HjiProdromou topresideatthemeeting. Thiscontention isbased onthe well established principle that ifthereisachangeinthecomposition of acollectiveorganatone of itsmeetingsby theparticipation of members not participating in the earlier meeting or meetingsor by the absence of members participatinginthefirstmeetingthecollectiveorgancannotvalidlytakedecisionsatitslastmeetingunlessatthatmeetingitrepeats fully andfromthebeginningthewholeprocessandthewholedeliberation, in which case itis considered that thedeliberation of the case was concluded at only this last meeting. In support of that proposition I was referred to Stassinopoulou Discourses of AdministrativeLaw 1957p.235,totheConclusionsof theGreek Council of State 1929 - 1959 and the Decision of the Greek Councilof State 1035
(1957). From the facts of the case as hereinabove set out, it appears that what actually took place at the first meeting of the Respondent Commission of the 5thAugust 1988,(Appendix 3)wasreferred toonce more at the second meeting held on the 14th August 1986and in itsminutes (Appendix 6),thereisa note tothat effect namely that there was a further examination of the matter and a reference to item 5 of the minutes of the meeting of the commission dated the5th August 1986.Furthermore,inthebody of the minutes it is stated that "the Public Service Commission havingexamined allthematerialbefore itincluding therepresentationsoftheofficers andtherelevantviewsoftheDirector decided tomakeintheinterestoftheservice thefollowing transfers." It is obvious from a perusal of the relevant minute that the wholeprocess andthewholedeliberation wasrepeated fully from 955 A.Loizou P. Papadopoulos v.P.S.C.
(1988)the beginning and so it must beconcluded that the case has, as laid down by theGeneralPrinciples of Administrative Law been considered andconcluded atthelastmeeting. Moreover theclaim oftheapplicantthathistransfer amounted to a demotion cannot stand as the transfer in no way affects his 5 status in the hierarchy of the service. His rank is one of Senior Executive Engineer and hecontinues tobeoneandperforms the dutiesexpectedof him bytherelevantSchemeof Service.ThetitleofDivisional Engineerbeingonly adescription of thepostof being responsible for the Public Works Office in a Division or ^Q District. Nor the "rotation" of theofficers or asmore accurately can be put, the from time to time transfer of officers from one post toanotherorfromoneplacetoanothercanbeconsidered as offending any principlesofAdministrativeLaw andashampering inparticularasclaimed thediscretion of theRespondent Commis- ,^ sioninthematter.Transfer officers serveon thecontrary thevery purpose of fair dealing on theonehand and ofhaving asmanyif not allofficers acquiring anallround knowledge of thedutiesof theirofficer as well as preventing stagnation by the long stayof the same officers in one place or section of the service, on the other hand, but in any event leave the ultimate decision for the transfer inthediscretion of theRespondent Commission asit has beenthepresentcase. For all the above reasons I find that the sub-judice decision was taken lawfully and correctly in accordance with the provi- ^5 sionsof the Law and as theresult of the proper exercise of the discretionary powers given byLaw to the Respondent Commission,onceallrelevant mattersandcircumstanceswereduly taken intoconsideration includingtheviewsoftheapplicant himself. For all the above reasons therecourse is dismissed but in the circumstances therewillbenoorder astocosts. Recourse dismissed. Noorderas to costs. 956