clr/1988/1988_3_987.pdf

(1988)Previous Convictions—TheRehabilitation ofConvictedPersons Law, 1981 (Law 70181)—Deletionofpreviousconvictionsafterthe lapseofaperiod oftime. ThepromotionoftheinterestedpartytothepostofInspectorintheDepartmentofprisonwasannulledfor lackofdueinquiryastohisqualifica- 5 lionsandinparticularastotherequiredstandardofhiseducation. AsaresultthematterofpromotionwasreconsideredbythePublicServiceCommission.InthecourseofreconsiderationtheCommissionapplied totheDirector-GeneraloftheMinistryofEducationinordertoassistthem intheirinquiryastosuchqualification. 10 Finally,theCommissiononceagainpromotedtheinterestedpartytothe postinquestion.Hencethisrecourse.TheissuesexpoundedbytheCourt indismissingitsufficiently appearinthehereinaboveheadnote. Recourse dismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: AlexandrouandOthers v. TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 1059; Republic v.Safiriaes

(1985)3C.L.R.167; Republicv. Pericleous

(1984)3C.L.R. 557; Mytidesv. TheRepublic

(1983)3 C.L.R.1096; MaratheftouandOthers v. TheRepublic

(1982)3C.L.R. 1088; Ktoridesv.TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R. 171; Mikellidesv. TheRepublic

(1981)3C.L.R. 461; Republic v.Rousos

(1987)3C.L.R.

1. 988 20 3 C.L.R. , Kamenos & Others v. Republic Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondent topromotethe interested parties to the post of Inspector in the Departmentof Prisons in preference andinstead of the applicants. 5 A. S.Angelides, for the applicants. L. Koursoumba (Mrs.), for therespondent. . , N.Cleridou,for interested party A. Papadopoulos. , , Noappearancefor-interestedpartyA.Pontikides. .· Cur. adv.vult. ΙΟ .c KOURRISJ. read the following judgment. By this recourse the three applicants challenge thedecision of thePublic Service Commission to promote the interested parties, namely. Andreas PontikidesandAntonis PapadopouUos,tothepostof Inspectorin the Departmentof Prisons as from 15.9.83 in preference and/or instead of theapplicants.. The post in question is a promotion post and before the subjudice decision both theapplicants and theinterested parties were holding thepost of Senior Warden. .-'The facts of thiscase shortly are these: 20 25 The interested parties werepromoted to thepost of Inspector in theDepartmentof Prisons by adecision of the Public Service Commission dated 27-8.
2. Thepresent applicants,together with other applicants,challenged thedecision of therespondentCom­ mission topromotetheinterested parties to thepost of Inspector in theDepartmentof Prisons instead of them. Mr.Justice Sawides, who tried therecourse, in annulling the decision of thePublic Service Commission. (See Nicos Alexan· 989 KourrisJ. Kamenos& Othersv.Republic

(1988)drouandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.1059)saidthe following atpp. 1070and 1071: "Myconclusionfrom allthematerialbeforeme,isthat first theDepartmentalCommitteefailed tomakealistofthosecandidatespossessing thequalifications statedin the schemeof 5 service,asisrequiredbyRegulation4oftheRegulationsconcerningthefunctions ofDepartmentalCommittees(Appendix 22) and secondly, theP.S.C.relied on thereport of theDepartmentalCommitteeandthestatementoftheHeadoftheDepartmentregardingthestandardofeducationofcertaincandi- IQ dates andrefrained from conducting anyfurther inquiry.The factthattheP.S.C.calledanothercandidate,Mr.Christou,for an interview, does not mean, by itself, that the P.S.C. conductedadueinquiryintothematterofqualifications sinceasit seemsfromtheminutes,suchcandidatewascalledbecausehe «,had very good confidential reports.The fact also thatPontikidespossesses acertificate of attendance of certain tutorial lessons for a period of three years does not exonerate the P.S.C.fromitsdutytoinquireintothematterandevaluatethis certificate. Thefailure of theP.S.C.toevaluatethequalificationsof thecandidatesresultsintheabsenceof adueinquiry intothematterwhichisagroundforannulment, (seeAristotelousv.RepublicandConstantinidouv.Republic(supra)).The recoursetherefore, succeedsonthisground". Itappearsthatthegroundonwhichthelearnedjudgeannulled ^5 thedecisionoftherespondentauthoritywastheirfailuretoevaluatethequalifications ofthecandidatesresultingintheabsenceof adueinquiryintothematter. Inthelightof thesaidJudgment,thePublicServiceCommissionmadeinquiriesastothequalifications oftheinterestedparty ·*" Pontikidesandatameetingthattheyheldon22.6.86,decidedto promoteagaintheinterestedpartiestothesaidpost retrospectivelyasfrom15.9.83.Hence,thepresentrecourse. Counselfortheapplicantsbasedhisaddressmainlyonthefol- 35 990 3 C.L.R. 5 Kamenos & Others v. Republic Kourris J. lowing grounds:

(1)Therespondent authority acted undermis­ conceptionof law andfact;

(2)therespondentauthorityfailedto conductasufficient inquiry intothepossessionby the candidates of therequired qualifications andtheyfailed toevaluate properly thequalifications of theinterested party;

(3)therespondentau­ thorityfailed toselect themostsuitablecandidate. FirstIssue: 10 15 20 25 30 Thisissueconcernsthe"material time"inrelation tothe legal andfactual situationof acaseof reconsideration,andthe "materialtime"atwhich acandidatemustpossessthe required qualifica­ tions.This arisesfroma letter addressed by counsel of the Re­ public totherespondentauthority as aresult of theannulmentof their decision by the Supreme Courtadvising themhow toap­ proachtheirnewdecision inreconsidering thematter.Thisletter, dated7thJuly, 1986, is appendix 2totheopposition,andthe ma­ terialpartwhich is underattackby theapplicantreadsas follows: "

1. θα πρέπει να επανεξετάσετε την απόφαση σας με βάσητο νομικόκαιπραγματικό καθεστώςπουίσχυε στις 27.8.
2. Ειδικότερα, θαπρέπει ναπροβείτε σεεπαρκή έρευναγιαναδιαπιστώσετεανο κ.Ποντικίδηςείχε στις 27.8:1983τοπροσόντης 'καλής γενικής μόρφωσης επιπέ­ δουόχικατώτερουενός απολυτηρίουπεντατάξιαςσχολής μέσηςεκπαίδευσης'." Itis settled nowthatonanewconsiderationof thematterbythe PublicServiceCommission,after annulmentof thepreviousdeci­ sion for promotion,asinthecase before us,the"material time"is (a)asregardsthelegalandfactual situationtobetakenintoconsid­ eration,thetimeof themaking of thefirstdecision inthe matter, (i.e.the oneannulled).(See/?,v.Safirides

(1985)3C.L.R. 167at p. 170);(b)asregards thedateatwhich acandidatemustpossess therequired qualifications, thedateonwhich therequest for the filling of thevacancy isreceivedby thePublicServiceCommis­ sion. (R. v.Perikleous

(1984)3C.L.R.557 atpp.580 -588). 991 Kourris J. Kamenos &Others v.Republic

(1988)Counsel for theapplicantssubmitted that theopinion of counselof the Republic totherespondent authority intheletterof7th July, 1988,is wrong becauseheadvised them toconduct a sufficient inquiry to ascertain whetherPontikides had on 27.8.83 the qualification" of good generalknowledge not below the standard 5 of a certificate of a five year secondary school". Counsel said, that in accordance with the principles of administrative law the material time for possessing qualifications is the date on which therequest for the filling of thevacancy isreceived bythePublic Service Commission andnot thedateofitsdecision. ,« Counsel for therespondents triedtoexplain thatthispartof his letter should have been read together with thepreceding lines in which counsel advised the respondent authority to reconsider their decision on the basis of thefactual and legal situation existing on 27.8.83.The argument of counsel for therespondent was ,<very attractive but itcannot stand.Counsel for therespondent authority argued, in the alternative, that asthe Chairman of therespondent authority issued acirculardated 11.6.84(Appendix 11) stating that inthe light of thePericleous case (supra),thedate at which acandidate must possess therequiredqualifications isthe dateonwhich therequest for thefillingof thevacancy isreceived by the Public Service Commission, then nomisconception operated in the minds of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission. Indeed, it appears from thecontentsof the said circular that the Chairman oftherespondent Authority knew the "material time"atwhich acandidatemustposses therequired ^5 qualifications anditappearstomethat inreconsidering thecasein hand, they took into consideration the contents of the circular. Further, from a perusal of the files of the interested parties and the applicants, it appears that their qualifications on 22.8.86, when theP.S.C.promoted theinterested parties,after reconsider- 30 ation of the case, were the same on 27.8.-83when they reached their first decision which was annulled by theCourt. SecondIssue:, The second issue raised by learned counsel for the applicant 992 35 3C.L.R. Kamenos& Othersv.Republic KourrisJ. relatestotheevaluation of thequalifications ofinterestedparty Pontikidesandtotheinquirycarriedoutinrelationtothatissue. The first decision of the Public Service Commission on 27.8.83 had been annulled on the ground that "Failure of the 5 PublicServiceCommission toevaluatethequalifications ofthe candidatesresultsintheabsenceofadueinquiryintothematter whichisagroundforannulment".(SeeAlexandrouandOthers v.TheRepublic(supra)).Itshouldbenotedthatthefailureofthe PublicServiceCommission toevaluatethequalifications ofthe 10 candidates,concerned only interested party Pontikides.Therespondentauthorityinthecourseofreconsiderationof thematter oughttocarryoutadueinquiryinordertoenablethemselvesto evaluatethequalifications ofthecandidates,andwithoutbyany meanssurrenderingtheirowndiscretionarypower,appliedtothe Director-Generalof theMinistryofEducationtoassistthemto formtheiropinioninrelationtothequalificationsofPontikides. 20 25 35 Counselfortheapplicantarguedthattherespondentauthority failed tocarryoutasufficient inquiryinrelationtothatissueand alsofailed toevaluatecorrectlythequalificationsofinterestedpartyPontikides.Hesaidthattherespondentauthority shouldhave carried out awritten examination in order to ascertain whether Pontikidespossessedtherequiredqualificationsenvisagedbythe schemeofserviceinsteadofapplyingtotheDirector-Generalof theMinistryof Education.Hefurther contended thatthereisno laworregulationauthorisingtheDirector-General toevaluatethe certificates of K.T.E.E., the school atwhich Pontikides had attendedtutoriallessons. Learnedcounselfor therespondent authority arguedthatthe PublicServiceCommissioncouldconducttheirinquiryasaforesaidandtheyhadnospecificdutytocallallcandidatesforaninterviewortoconductanexaminationforthatmatter,andthefactthat theinquiryastotheevaluationofthequalificationsofothercandidateswasconductedinadifferent mannerisirrelevant,andshe referredtheCourttoStassinopoullos,LawofAdministrativeActs, 1951 atpp.331 -333,particularlyatp.333whereitisstated:993 Kourris J. Kamenos &Others v. Republic

(1988)Ή περίπτωσις της αυτοδεσμεύσεως της διακριτικής εξουσίας,ήτοι η οικειοθελής υπαγωγήαυτήςεις τύπουςκαι δεσμεύσεις, μη επιβαλλόμενος, αλλ' ουδ1 απαγορευομένας υπό του νόμου, δεν αποκλείεται, ως συνιστώσα εκλογήν μέσων προς μόρφωσιν κρίσεως. Συνέπεια όμως της αυτοδεσμεύσεως ταύτης είναι ότι δεν δύναται εφεξής ν1 αγνοηθή αύτη αυθαιρέτωςυπό του προκαλέσαντοςαυτήν οργάνου, διότι,τούτο θ' απετέλει απόδειξινασυνεπούςκαι αυθαιρέτου, ήτοι πλημμελούς ασκήσεως της διακριτικής εξουσίας.' 5 ^ I agree with learned counsel for therespondentauthoritythat theexerciseof theduty of thePublic ServiceCommission toas­ certain thequalifications of eachcandidateasafactual situation is nowhere restricted tospecific actsormanner.(SeeMitidesv. The Republic,

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1096, andMaratheftou andOthers v. Republic,

(1982)3 C.L.R. 1088 atp.1093.) 15 InKtoridesv.TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R. 171 atp. 173,it is stated: "It is well-settled that this Court,as an administrative Court controlling theexercised of thediscretion of thePublic Service 20 Commission, when itdecides whether ornotacandidatepossess­ es thequalifications required underaschemeof service,examines only whether the Commission, on the material before it, could reasonably have cometoaparticular conclusion." In thecase of Mikellides v.TheRepublic

(1981)3C.L.R. 461 atp. 469, itis stated as follows:- 2 5 "Thereisampleauthoritythattheinterpretationof aschemeof service and its application will not be interfered with by the Court,solong as such interpretationandapplication was reasona­ bly open tothecompetentadministrative organ.Theapplication, 30 however, by such organ of a scheme of service to thecircum­ stances of eachparticularcase,hastobemadeafter sufficient in­ quiryregardingallmaterial consideration." 994 3C.L.R. 5 Kamenos& Othersv.Republic KourrisJ. IhavereachedtheconclusionthatthePublicServiceCommission,withoutsurrenderingtheirultimatecompetenceandresponsibilitytodecidethemselveswhetherthecandidatewasqualified undertherelevant schemeof servicefor promotion, whetherin facthehad"agoodeducationhotbelowthestandardofaleaving certificate ofafive-year secondaryschool"inquiredintothematterin amannerthat wasquitelegitimately open tothem before evaluatingthemselvesthecertificateofPontikidesasafactualsituationandthereafter decidingwhetherthiscandidatewasunder therelevatschemeofserviceeligibleforpromotion. 10 Theinquirywascertainlyearnedout subsequent to 1983 but themattersthatweretakenintoconsideration werethosethatfactually-and legally existed on 27.8.83;and that on that day the Public ServiceCommission could legitimately haveconsidered documents made subsequent to 1981 todecide whether on the 15 materialdatein 1981 Pontikideshadtherequiredqualifications. 20 Inviewof theabove,Ithink,thatit isevident inthelightof therelevant material placedbefore therespondentCommission, thatitcouldreasonablyhavereachedtheconclusionthattheinterestedpartypossessedtherequiredqualifications evisagedbythe schemeofservice. ThirdIssue Thethirdissuewhichcallsfor determination iswhether the 2* PublicServiceCommissionpromoted themost suitablepersons tothepostofInspectorintheDepartmentofPrisons. 30 ItisasettledprincipleofadministrativelawthatwhenanadministrativeorgansuchasthePublicServiceCommissionselects acandidateonthebasisofcomparison withothers,itisnotnecessarytoshow,inordertojustify hisselection,thathewasstrikinglysuperiortotheothers.Ontheotherhand,theadministrative Courtcannotinterferenorsetasidethedecisionunlesstheapplicantestablishesthathehadstrikingsuperiorityovertheinterested party. 995 KourrisJ. Kamenos& Othersv.Republic

(1988)ThecriteriawhichthePublicServiceCommissionhavetotake intoconsiderationwhenreachingadecisionhavebeenexpounded in thecaseofRepublicv.Rousos

(1987)3 C.L.R.1217. In thepresent casetherespondentauthoritymadeacomparisonoftheconfidentialreportsoftheinterestedpartiesandtheap- 5 plicants andalthough itappeared that for theyears 1980- 1981 and 1982allwereratedas"verygood",nevertheless,theinterested parties had aprogressively better rating in individual items whereas the applicants (except Yiannouris) had aprogressively lowerratinginindividualitemsduringthesamevers.Yiannouris wasrated in theconfidential reportsas "good".Thus,it appears 10 that interested parties andapplicants Kamenos andTilemachou withregardtomerit,aremoreorlessequalthoughtheinterested partieshadaprogressivelyhigherratinginindividualitemsduring the last 3yearsprior to thedecision of theP.S.C. Also,all theapplicantsandtheinterestedpartieshadpossessedthequalifi- 15 cationsenvisagedbytheschemeofservicebut,onlytheinterestedpartieswererecommendedbytheHeadoftheDepartmentfor promotion and the fact that applicant Kamenos is senior by 2 years to the interested parties,his seniority cannot override the strongrecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartmentinfavour -n oftheinterestedparties.ItshouldbenotedthattheinterestedpartieswereseniortoapplicantTelemachou whereasapplicantYiannouriswasseniortotheinterestedparties. Counsel for theapplicants arguedthat nomentionismadeof applicant Yiannouris during themeeting of thePublic Service Commission when theytookthesubjudicedecision.Itappears thatYiannouriswasnotrecommended bytheDepartmentalCommittee for promotion but thePublic Service Commission when theytookthesubjudicedecisiontheyhadallthefilesofthecandidatesforpromotionbeforethemandinreconsideringthematter theyreconsideredallcandidates.Thefactthatnomentionismade of applicant Yiannourisdoesnotfollow thattherespondentdid notconsiderhimintakingthesubjudicedecision. In thepresentinstance,itwasreasonablyopentotherespon- 35 996 3 C.L.R. 5 20 15 2Q 25 Kamenos &Others v. Republic Kourris J. dentCommissiononthetotalityofthematerialbeforeitandinthe exerciseofitsrelevantdiscretionary powers,with whichIfind no sufficient cause to interfere, toselect as being the most suitable persons for promotion the interested parties instead of theapplicants. It follows that the applicants have failed to establish any striking supenoriry whichisnecessary inordertojustify any interference bytheCourt with thesubjudicedecision whichwasin the circumstances reasonably open to the respondent Commission. Counsel for the applicant on thedate fixed for clarifications, raised the point that the Court annulled theprevious decision of therespondent authority because it found that the departmental committee failed to make a list of those candidates possessing qualifications statedintheschemeof serviceandconsequently reconsideration of the matter should go back to the departmental committeefor reconsideration. I am not inclined to agree with counsel for the applicant that the learned Judge who tried the first recourse (see Alexandrou and Others v. The Republic (supra)), annulled the decision for failure of thedepartmental committee tomakealistof thecandidates possessing the qualifications stated in the scheme of service.Atp. 1070of hisJudgment, he.mentions the saidfailure of thedepartmental committee but hedid not state that that was a ground for annulment. The material part of thejudgment which annulled the decision appears atp. 1071where itis stated: "The failure ofthePublicServiceCommission toevaluatethe qualificationsof thecandidates resultsin theabsenceof adue inqury into thematter,which isa groundfor annulment. (SeeAristotelous v. The Republic and Constantinidou v. The Republic (supra). The recourse,therefore, succeedson this ground." 30 Itis thus clear that the ground for annulling thedecision was the failure of therespondent authority toevaluate the qualificationsof thecandidates which resultedin theabsenceof adueinquiryintothematter. 35 997 KourrisJ. Kamenos& Othersv. Republic

(1988)Counselfortheapplicant alsoraisedthepointthatthePublic ServiceCommissionfailedtocarryoutanyinquiryintothecriminal convictions of interested partyPontikides. Counsel alleged thatPontikides wasconvictedon 26.6.75for gamblingandthat thiswasnottakenintoconsideration bythePublicServiceCommissioninviewoftheadviceofcounselfortheRepublicthatthis 5 convictionwasirrelevantforthepurposesofpromotionofapublic servant.Indeed,s.44(l)(d)of thePublicServiceLaw 1967, providesthat "Noofficer shallbepromotedtoanotheroffice ifhe hasbeenpunishedduring thepreceding2yearsfor anydisciplinaryoffence ofaseriousnature".Inthepresentcase,nodiscipli- 1Q naryproceedingswerebroughtagainsttheinterestedpartyPontikides.Further, therespondentauthority inquired withregard to anypreviousconvictionsbytheinterestedpartyPontikides from theChief ofPolicewhorepliedon7.5.85(Appendix 8)thatPontikideshadnopreviousconvictions. I <ThisisacorrectstatementbecausebyvirtueoftheRehabilita: tionof ConvictedPersonsLaw 1981(Law70/81),theprevious convictionsof persons for certainoffences aredeleted after the lapseofacertainperiod.Inthecircumstancesofthepresentcase, unders.5ofthesaidlaw,aconvictionisdeletedafter thelapseof 5 years.Consequently, at thetimethePublic ServiceCommission tooktheirfirstdecision in 1983,interestedpartyPontikides hadnopreviousconvictionsbecausehisconvictionforgambling wasdeletedafterthelapseof5yearsfromthedateoftheconvictionwhichwasin1975. For allthese reasons,therecourse fails and isdismissed,but with noorderforcosts. Recoursedismissed. ™ Noorderastocosts. 998