3 C.L.R. 1989 February 7 [SAWIDES. J] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHECONSTITUTION CHARALAMBOS Ν CHARALAMBOUS. Applicant, THE PUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION Respondent (Case No.753/85) Public officers — Appointments — First entry and promotion post — Interview, performance act — Weight — Greater than m cases concerningpromotion posts Publicofficers — Appointments — Firstentry andpromotion post — Head of department— Recommendations — Rightlytaken intoconsideration Public officer*— Appointments — First entry and promotion post — Sinking superiority By means of this recourse the applicant inpugns the decision of the respondent Commission to appoint the interested parties to the post of Foreman in thePublic WoiksDepartment The principles applied by the Court, in dismissing the Recourse. sufficiently appear inthehereinabove Headnotes The interested parties had been recommendedby the Head of the Department and have been rated better than the interested parties at the relevant interview before the Commission both by the Head of the Department and the Commission itself Recourse dismissedwithno order as to costs 195 Charalambous v. Public Sen. Comm.
(1989)Case?referredto: Christoudias v. Republic
(1984)3 CL.R.
- A\raamandAnotherv. Republic(19S6)3CL.R.
- 5 Mcolaidou v. Republic(19S5)3CLR.
- Recourse. 10 Recourse against the decision of the respondent to appoint the interested parties to the post of Foreman in the Public Works Department in preference andinstead ofthe applicant. A. Markides,for the Applicant. 15 S.Maieas.Counsel oftheRepublic B,for the Respondent. Cur. adv.vult. 20 SAWIDES. J. read the following judgment. The applicant challengesthedecision oftherespondent publishedinthe official Gazette of the Republic dated the21st June, 1985,whereby the interested partied. namely, 1.Sotirios Demetriou,
- Sophoclis Costa,
- Costas Sawa Spvrou.
- .Andreas Stvlianou and
- 25 Andreas Tsiakkoura were appointed to the post of Foreman in the Public Works Department instead of and in preference to him. Therecourse wasoriginally directed againsttheappointment 30 of twelve interest parties:butit waslater withdrawn against the remaining seven in view of the fact that service had not been effected on them. The facts of the case arebriefly asfollows: 35 The applicant is working in the Public Works Department since 1956 on a daily or weekly basis. The interested parties were also working atthematerial time,inthesame department on a similar basis, their employment starting, between 1975 - 40 19S
- 196 3 CL.R. Charalambous v.Public Serv.Comm. Sawides, J. On the 2nd April,
- twelve vacancies in the post of Foreman which isafirst entrypost intheaforesaid Department were advertised in the official Gazette of the Republic. The Departmental Committee which was set up for the purpose of 5 considering the applications by its report dated the 6th July, 1984, which was submitted to the respondent Commission. recommended 41 candidates amongst whom the applicant and the interested parties. 10 The respondent interviewed 32 candidates between the 1st March and the 11th March,
- On the 11th March, 1985, after the interviews were concluded, the respondent heard the v\tws of the Head of the Department with regard to the performance of the candidates during the interviews. The 15 respondent met again on the 12th March, 1985, and after evaluating the performance of the candidates during the interviewsproceededtotheselection oftheinterested partiesas the most suitablefor appointment to the post in question. The appointment of the interested parties was published in the 20 official Gazette of the Republic dated the 21st June, 1985,asa result of which thepresent recourse was filed. Counsel for applicant arguedthat the applicant was superior to the interested parties having successfully performed various 25 jobsentrusted to him. Theinterested parties areinferior tohim regarding experience and have not been entrusted with the performance of any jobs under their absolute supervision. He also argued that the respondent failed to consider the seniority ofthe applicant and didnot conduct adue inquiry intothecase. 30 Lastly counsel argued that undue weight was placed by the respondent to the performance of the candidates during the interviews. Asstatedinanumberofauthoritiesincasesofthisnaturethe 35 applicant has to show striking superiority over the interested parties. As I said earlier, the post is a first entry post. All parties however, were working in the Department on a casual basis. 40 After the conclusion of the interviews the Head of the Department concerned expressed his views regarding the performance ofthecandidatesboth duringtheinterviews andin 197 Savvides, J. Charalambous v.Public Serv. Comm.
(1989)their work. In this respect the applicant was evaluated as "average"both withregardtohisperformance attheinterview andinhiswork. Allinterested parties ontheotherhandwere evaluated by the same person as "excellent" both at the interview and in their work. The respondent Commission 5 evaluated the applicant as"good"and theinterested partiesas 'Very good". There is no dispute that all parties possess the qualificationsrequiredbytheschemeofserviceforthepost. As to the factor of seniority such factor only counts in casesof promotion andnot appointment to first entry posts; andthen 10 againonlyifallotherfactorsaremoreorlessequal. Lastlyonthe argument thatundueweight wasplacedtothe performance ofthecandidatesduringtheinterviews,ithasbeen said in a number of cases that the weight to be placed to the 15 performance ofcandidates duringinterviewsisgreaterincases of first entry as compared to promotion posts. (See in this respect Christoudiasv.TheRepublic
(1984)3CL.R. 657at p.664;AvraamandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1986)3CL.R. 2321,atp.2325; Nicoiaidou v.TheRepublic
(1985)3CL.R. 20 2492atpp.2499-2500). InthecircumstancesofthepresentcaseIfindthattheweight attached to the performance of the candidates during the interviews wasnot an undueone. In anyevent it wasnot the 25 onlyfactorrelieduponbytherespondent whohadbeforeitand took into consideration the views of the Head of the Department regarding the performance of the candidates in theirwork. 30 In view ofthe above Ifindthat thesubjudice decisionwas reasonably open to the respondent andthe applicant failed to establishstrikingsuperiorityovertheinterestedparties. Inthe resultthisrecoursefails andishereby dismissedwith 35 no orderforcosts. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 198