clr/1989/1989_3A_513.pdf

(1989)31 October 1986that an officer was appointed to apost as from 20 October 1986 — In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the publicationdocsnot establish retrospccuvity intheappointment Educationalofficers— Promotions — Qualifications— Additionalto those requiredby SchemeofService, butnotregardedasanadvantage— They must be asregarded, but must be takeninto consideration so farasthe generalpicture of thecandidates is concerned 5 Due inquiry — Presumption of regularity,— Failure to includein a table ]Q attachedto the opposition of therecourse a qualification possessedby one of the applicants — Tablemerely prepared by Counsel for the purposes ot therecourse — As the qualification in questionappearedin thefiles,itcannotbesaidthattheCommission asregardedit 15 Educational officers — Promotions — Interviews,performance at — The necessaryimportance must begivento them,especially»henthepost in question isahighexecutive post Educational officers — Appointments/promotions — first entry and 2 0 promotion post — Promotion post as far as all the candidates in the present case were concerned — Seniority could not therefore, be disregarded— ThePublicEducational Semcc Law, 1969, Law 10/1969, section 352 25 By meansottheaboverecourses theapplicantschallengethedecision oftherespondent commission topromotetheinterestedpartvtothepost of Headmaster of the PaedagogicalAcademy The issues which have been raisedand the relevant principles appliedby the Court in disposing them sufficiently appear in the hereinabove Hcadnotes The Court 30 concluded that the sub judicc decision was reasonably open to the respondent Commission Recourses dismissed No order as to costs 35 Casesreferred to Hadjigeorghiouν Cyprus TourismOrganization

(1986)3CLR 1110, 40 Makndes ν Republic

(1983)3CLR 750, 514 3C.L.R. Theofillides & Others v.Republic Hadjiantom andOthers ν Republic

(1983)3CLR1145, AndromkouandOthers ν Republic

(1987)3CLR 1237, 5 Demetnades ν Republic(19S8)3CLR 1034, Republic ν Panayiotides

(1987)3CLR1081, Frangos ν Republic

(1970)3CLR 312 10 Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondents to promote the interested party to the post of Headmaster of 15 Paedagogical Academy in preference and instead of the applicants. Κ Tiuandes,for the Applicant in Cases 96/87and97/87 20 Λ Markides, for Applicant in Case No 112/87 A Adamides,for Applicant in Case No. 130/87 A S Angelides. withCh Iendes, for the Interested party. 25 Cur adv vulr 30 A LOIZOU, P.read thefollowing judgment The applicants in these recourses challenge the decision of the respondent Educational Service Commission, to promote the interested party to the post of Headmaster of thePaedagogical Academy They involve common questions of law and fact and for that reason they were heard together 35 At its meeting of the 4th December, 1986, the respondent Commission decided to invite all the candidates for a personal interview. Thereafter at its meeting of the 18th October 1986 it decided that 40 "Forthe evaluation of the candidates in the course of the said interviews there will be taken into consideration the following catena. 515 A. Lolzou, P. Theofillides &Others v.Republic

(1989)(

1. a)Lingua]ease andreadinessintheformulation ofviews. (
2. b)Grasping ofproblemswithintheframework ofmodern teaching. Perception and approach to organising and administrativeproblems,comingwithinthecompetence 5 ofthe HeadmasterPaedagogicAcademy. (
3. c)Scientific documentation ofviews. (
4. d)Personality." 10 The respondent Committee at a series of meetings interviewed the candidates in the presence of the Head of Secondary Education.Attheendofeachmeetingitproceeded to evaluate the performance of the candidates at the 15 interviews. After the conclusion of the interviews the respondent Commission considered the personal and confidential reports of allthecandidates. On the 29th November 1986, the Head of Secondary 20 Education submitted therecommendations ofthe appropriate Department which read asfollows: "After consideringthepersonal files andthe confidential reports of all the candidates, for the post of Headmaster 25 Paedagogical Academy and after taking intoconsideration their performance at the interviews, all candidates were found suitable for the said post and the Commission is requested to proceed with itsselection for thefilling ofthe post." - 30 At the meeting of the 4th December 1986.the respondent Commission dealt with the merit of the candidates and the relevant minutereads: 35 "Merit.Forthedetermination ofthemeritofthecandidates theCommission takes intoconsideration. (
5. a)the contents of the personal and confidential report files, of each candidate and the totality of his service 40 reports bygivingspecial weight tothemost recent. 516 3 C.L.R. Thcofillides &Others v. Republic A. Loizou. P. (
6. b)the performance of the candidates at the personal interviews. (
7. c)therecommendation of the appropriate Authority." 5 The respondent Commission further dealt with the qualifications required by the Scheme of Service and the seniority of the candidates. 10 Finally the respondent Commission on the basis of the provisions of the Law and of the Schemes of Service and after takingintoconsideration themerit qualifications, andseniorityof thecandidatesandbyevaluatingtogetherallthecriteriaandgiving dueweighttoeachoneofthem,arrivedattheconclusionthat Mr. 15 ArisGeorghiou, Inspector "A"(Secondary Education),"presents by comparison thebest picture of allthecandidates andheisthe most prevailingcandidatefor promotion totheabovepost." Therespondent Commission thendealtwiththe qualifications 20 and marks ofthe interestedparty intheconfidential reports and concluded by adding that "at the personal interview he was described as excellent". The respondent Commission thereafter proceeded to make a comparison of the interested party with each and everyone of the candidates by reference to their 25 qualifications, seniority,marksintheconfidential repons andthe performance attheinterviews". One of thegrounds on which the recourses were fought was that the members of the Commission were not in a position to 30 assess properly the performance of the candidates at the interview on the basisof thecriteria whichthey themselves had specified by their decision of the 18th October, 1986. In particular, with regard to criteria (
8. b)and (
9. c)it was contended that themembers of the Commission hadno knowledge of "the 35 problems within theframework of modern teaching perception etcetera"andthat theywerenot scientifically equippedsoasto evaluate "ascientific documentation ofviews". Learned counsel for the applicants in Recourses 96/87, and 40 97/87, went a step further and submitted that since the respondent Commission hadspecified scientific criteriafor the evaluation of the candidates, its members had therefore to be 517 A. Loizou,P. Theofillides & Others v.Republic

(1989)experts in matters of Education which they were not since onlyone of them -Mr.Tornaris -wasscientifically equipped in Education. There isno requirement inthePublicEducational Service 5 Law 1969(LawNo. 10of 1969),orelsewhereformembersof the respondent Commission to possess themselves all qualifications which may possibly be required of the candidates.TheywerepeopleinvolvedinEducation,including oneofthemwhoisanexpert,withvastexperienceinthefield 10 ofworktheywereperforming. Iseetherefore novalidreason toquestiontheabilityoftherespondentCommissiontoapply thetestitdid. Itwasalso submitted thatin the absence of arecord of the 15 questions and answers at the interviews, the Court is today deprived of the necessary material in order to be enabled to control judicially the decision of the respondent Commission regardingtheperformance ofthecandidatesatsuchinterviews. 20 The desirability of keeping proper records by collective organsinorder that judicialcontrol maybepossiblehasbeen stressed by the Court on numerous occasions in the past. Nevertheless there is no requirement to keep full recordsof the questions and answers given bythe candidates but "their 25 duty is limited to record their findings asto performance of each of the candidates at the interviews and make their commentsonthebasisofsuchfindings".(SeeHadjigeorghiou v. Cyprus Tourism Organization

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1110 at 1120.Also Makrides v. The Republic

(1983)3C.L.R. 750; 30 Hadjiantoni and Others v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1145; Andronikou and Others v. The Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1237at p. 1244.) Once there was sufficient record of their findings, as is 35 required above,therewasnofurther needfor amoredetailed record andthisgroundtherefore mustfail. Afurther argument relatedto thematter of the interviews put forward in Recourses Nos. 96/86, 97/86, is that the 40 questions put to the candidates were not the same or similar and that therefore the respondent Commission had acted 518 3C.L.R. Theofillides &Others v.Republic A.Loizou, P. contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution, having thus. contravened the principle of equality. There is no such requirement when interviewing candidates 5 to posetothemthesame orsimilarquestions,asthepurposeof the interviews generally is to ascertain the suitability of each candidate for the particular post inquestion,amatter to which obviously there cannot be applied any uniform test asthe way aninterview isconducted may dependto agreat extent to each 10 individual candidate. InanycasetherespondentCommission in itsdutyto selectthemost suitablecandidateisvested withgreat discretion. SeeDemetriades v.The Republic

(1988)3 C.L.R. 1034, where it was held that the Public Service Commission, validly examined the applicant in more subjects than the other 15 candidates in its effort to ascertain whether anyone candidate possessed the required qualifications at the required standard andwhich doesnot amount to discrimination. Itwasfurther contendedthattheattendanceatthe interviews 20 prior to the 31st October 1986; of the·Director of Secondary Education,Mr. Koullis,astherepresentativeofthe appropriate Department, was wrong in law as the appropriate officer was the Director of Secondary and Higher Education to which post Mr.Koulliswasgiven an acting appointment, asargued,on the 25 31st October 1986 retrospectively as from the 20th October

1. So it was alleged in fact that Mr..Koullis did not in fact holdthesaidpost prior tothe 31st October
2. As it appears in the Official Gazette of the Republic of the 30 31st October 1986, under Notification No. 3098, Mr. Koullis wasappointed to such post asfrom the20th October 1986,but it is not stated therein that such appointment was as alleged effected on the 31st October 1986,retrospectively as from the 20th October 1986.Therefore in theabsence of evidenceto the 35 contraryandonthepresumption ofregularitytheattendanceof Mr. Koullis wasnot contraryto lawbutwasinsuchcapacity as isrequiredinthepresentcase.Theargumentmusttherefore fail. Another argument is that the respondent Commission 40 disregarded the fact that the· applicants possessed higher qualifications than the interested party and or failed to conduct a proper inquiry into their possession of such qualifications. It 519 A.Loizou,P. Theofillides & Others v.Republic

(1989)isnot disputedthat theapplicant possessedsuch qualifications but as is the general principle qualifications over and above thoserequiredbythe Schemeof Service,donot work tosuch candidate'sadvantage vis-a-visthequalifications possessedby the other candidates. Undoubtedly they are not to be 5 disregarded,but mustbetakenintoconsideration sofar asthe general picture of thecandidate isconcerned. Asregardstheallegation onbehalf ofapplicant inRecourse No. 112/87,that therespondent Commission failed toconduct 10 the necessary inquiry into his possession of a certain qualification assuchisnotcontained inthecomparative table attached to the Opposition,in thefirst place Imust statethat suchcomparative table wasmerely prepared for the purposes of the present recourse andistherefore ofnovaluebut more 15 important it wasnever before therespondent Commission at therelevant time. Inanycaseinthepresentinstancesinceall the qualifications of the candidates as contained in their personal files were before the respondent Commission they cannot be said to have either been disregarded or that the 20 respondent Commission failed to conduct the necessary inquiry,andconsequentlythisargument mustfail. Itwasfinally contendedon behalf oftheapplicantsthatthe promotion of the interested party should be annulled as in 25 reaching the sub judice decision the respondent Commission gave undue weight to the impressions created by the candidates at the interviews and to the interested party's seniority. 30 As far as the question of interviews is concerned though undoubtedly undue weight should not be given to the performance of the candidates at them, nevertheless, such performance sinceitmayrevealthecandidates'personalityand abilities andto acertain extent assist intheevaluation oftheir 35 qualifications, not only it must not be ignored as this would defeat the purpose of having interviews, but the necessary importance must begiventothem,especially herethepost to be filled is a high executive post for which such qualities are most important, asisthe present case.(SeeAndronikouand 40 Others v. The Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 1237 at p. 1244; Republic v.Panayiotides

(1987)3C.L.R. 1081atp. 1088.) 520 3 C.L.R. Theofillides &Others v. Republic A. Loizou, P. Therefore I find that in the circumstances the respondent Commission was justified in taking into consideration to the extent itdidtheperformance ofthecandidates atthe interviews andIdonot considerthat undueweightwasinanywaygiven to 5 them. As regards the contention that the respondent Commission erred in taking into consideration the seniority of the candidates,asthepostwasnot apromotion postbutafirst entry 10 and promotion post, and since the candidates came from different departments in which case no question of seniority shouldhave arisen Ifind no merit in it. In the first place as far as all parties are concerned, the post of Headmaster of the Paedagogical Academy,isapromotion post withinthemeaning 15 ofSection 23of thePublic Educational Service Law, 1969(Law No. 10 of 1969), and in accordance with Section 35

(2)of the Law"theclaimsof officers to promotion shallbeconsidered on thebasis of merit, qualifications and seniority". 20 In the present circumstances the respondent Commission couldnot withoutvalidreason havedisregardedtheseniorityof the interested party over the applicants, in which case special reasoning would have been required to be given, as in accordance with the established principles seniority prevails 25 when all other things are equal. In conclusion Ifind that on thefacts itwas reasonably open totherespondent Commission toselecttheinterestedparty for the post in question; I also find that it exercised its discretion 30 properly and within the provision of thelaw,such discretion to select the most suitable person for the post, which in this case was a high post, in the educational hierarchy being in the circumstancesverywide.(SeeFrangos v.TheRepublic

(1970)3C.L.R. 312,at p.343.) 35 For allthe above reasons these recourses fail and are hereby dismissed, the sub judice decision is confirmed under Article 146

(4)(a)oftheConstitution,butinthecircumstancestherewill bebo order asto costs. 40 Recoursesdismissed. No orderas tocosts. 521