(1989)19S9May 12 [SAVVIDES. J J INTHE MATTF.R OFARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION STELIOS GAVRIELIDES. Applicant. ν THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent (CMei\o 217/S6) Public oiliccrs — Piomotions — Meat — Qualifications — Seniority — Applicant senior to interested parties by live and tittecn months respectively, qualifications more or less equal,but interested parties hadbetter confidential reports and uere recommended by the Head of the Department — Seniority not such as to override the 5 superiority in merit of the interested parties Public officers — Promotions — Head of Department — Recommendations of— Presumption ol regularity — In the absence of e\idencc to the contrary, it should be inferred thai the ]() recommendations u-cre propcil) made— Headol Department may consult the superiors ol the candidates, when he has no direct knowledge ot their work Bias— Lack ol impartiality mustbe established withsufficient certainty Public officers — Promotions — Confidential reports — Alterations ellectcd in blue ink not by countersigning officer, but by the reporting officer himself who initialled the changes — Not an megularity The issues and principles applied bv the Couu, in dismissing tin»» 540 15 20 3C.L.R. Gavriclides v.Republic recourse,sufficiently appear inthehereinabove Headnotcs. Recoursedismissed. No order as to costs. 5 Recourse. Recourse against the promotion of the interested parties to the post of Ward Supervisor in the Medical and Public Health 10 Services in preference and instead of the applicant. N.Papaefctathiou. for the Applicant. 15 P. Hadjidcmecriou. Counsel of the Republic B, for the Respondent. Cur. adv.vult. SAVVIDES. J. read the following judgment. The applicant 20 challenges by the present recourse, the promotion of Loizos Yiangou andAvgi Pieridou.the interested parties to the postof Ward Supervisor in the Medical and Public Health Services. Though originally this case was dealt together with Case No. 25 54/86 in view of the different legalgroundsthat are raised inthe twocases, Ihave decided to examine each case separately. The facts are briefly as follows: 30 In the process of filling twelve vacancies in the post of Ward Supervisor, the Departmental Committee,which considered the matter, submitted on the 8th November. 19S5.itsreport to the respondent, by which it recommended 39 candidates amongst whom the interested parties, but not the applicant. At its 35 meetingofthe2Sth November, 1985.therespondent considered the report of the Departmental Committee and decided to consider for promotion in addition to the 39 candidates recommended, a number of other candidates who had better confidential reports than one of the recommended candidates. 40 The applicant wasnot amongst those candidates. Onthe 13th December. 19S5,therespondent heardthe views 541 Saw ides, J. Gavnelidcs v.Republic
(1989)of the Director of Medical Services and Public Health Services andon the next day after takinginto consideration all relevant matters, decided to promote theinterested parties The above decision was published in the official Gazette of 5 the Republic dated the28th February, 1986,asaresult ofwhich theapplicant filed thepresent recourse. The legal issues raised by the address of counsel for the applicant are that: 10 (a) Neither the Departmental Committee, nor the respondent conducted any inquiry such as the holding of interviews in order to ascertain whether the interested parties possessed administrative and organizing abilities, responsibility and 15 initiative as required by paragraph
(2)of the schemes of service for the post. (
- b)The Departmental Committee wronglydidnot recommend and the respondent wrongly didnot consider the applicant 20 tor promotion. (
- c)The respondent failedto select thebestcandidateinviewof thefact that theapplicant wasatleastequaltothe interested parties regarding qualifications andseniority to them 25 (
- d)The recommendations ofthe headof the Department were made without a due inquiry into the matter. (
- e)Lack of impartiality on the pan of the reporting officer in 30 the preparation of applicant's confidential reports (
- f)The confidential reports ofthe applicant and the interested parties were prepared in contravention oftheprovisionsof circular No 491/79 The holding of an interview is within the discretion of the respondent, which hastherightto regulate itsown proceedings. The respondent as well as the Departmental Committee had before them the personal files, the confidential reports, the 40 scheme of service and the comparative tables from which they found that both the applicant and theinterested parties, aswell 542 35 3 C.L.R. Gavrielides v. Republic Savvides, J. as a number of other candidates, possessed the qualifications required by the scheme of service,and was reasonably open to them not to holdtheinterviews.This answersthe first ground. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 The paramount duty of an appointing organ is to select the best candidates for appointment or promotion.The respondent in the process of selecting the best candidate has to take into consideration theconfidential reports,thequalifications andthe seniority of the candidates, as well as the recommendations of the Head of the Department. A comparison of the confidential reports of the applicant and the interested parties shows that three of the interested parties were excellent in all years since 1970whilsttheapplicant wasverygoodallthrough.Withregard to qualifications all of them were found to possess the qualifications required by the scheme of service. In any event the qualifications of the applicant and the interested parties, as theyappearinthecomparative tables,aremoreorlessthesame since they all have attended certain post - graduate training courses. With regard to seniority, the applicant is senior to interested party Pieridou byfivemonths and by fifteen months to interested party Yiangou. His seniority is very small to override thebetterconfidential reportsoftheinterested parties. In view of this it isof academic importance whether, asit isthe complaint of theapplicant, any othercandidatesequalto himin merit and qualifications were recommended by the Departmental Committee, since none of them wasselected for promotion. In any event the respondent having considered the report of the Departmental Committee, decided, at its meeting of the28th November, 1985,in the light of the material before it,to take alsointoconsideration anadditional number of other candidates whohadbetter confidential reportsthan oneof those recommended by the Departmental Committee. All of these candidateshowever,havebeen ratedasexcellent inatleast their last three confidential reports whilst the applicant was never rated as excellent. Asto the recommendations of the Head of the Department, besides being the proper organ to give such recommendations hemay, ifthecasesorequires when hehasno direct knowledge 40 of the work of the candidates, consult their superiors before submitting his recommendations. It may be inferred, having regard to the principle of regularity and in the absence of any 543 Savvides,J. Gavrielides v.Republic
(1989)evidence tothecontrary,thattheproper course was followedin the present case, and the recommendations of the Head of the Department were properly made. With regard to ground (e)it is theapplicant's case that his 5 confidential reports are tainted with bias. In respect to this complaint ofhis,hehassent aletter the7th December, 1985, to the respondent stating the following: "Επειδή πληροφορούμαιότιτοReport απότην υπηρεσία 10 μου δενείναι αντικειμενικόνθαήθελα να οας παρακαλέ σωόπωςδιερευνήσετε διάτηνεπανεξέτασιντου προσοοπικού θέματοςμου*'. "(Since I am informed thatthereport from my service isnot 15 impartial I would liketoask you tosee tothereconsideration of my personal matter"). The respondent replied tothe applicant by letter datedthe 21st December, 1985, stating that since no material wasplaced 20 before therespondent Commission, it could notproceed with the examination of thematter. It has been stated in a number of cases that lack of impartiality onthepanof a public officer must beestablished 25 with sufficient certainty. No material was placed either before the Commission or the Court which could lead even toan inference thatthereports oftheapplicant weretaintedwith bias. This ground must, therefore, fail. 30 What remains to be considered is theallegation of counsel for applicant that tiie confidential reports of theparties were prepared in contravention of the provisions of circularNo. 491/79 in that alterations were effected in thereports bythe countersigning officers, in blue ink and without previous 35 consultation with thereporting officer as it is provided by the said circular. Upon examination of the relevant files itbecomes apparent that there are no alterations in the reports of the interested 40 parties. Astothe reports of the applicant analteration appears in his report of 1985 (which in any event was notbefore the 544 3C.L.R. Gavrietides v. Republic Savvides, J. respondent) in item 12bywhichtheaspect ofhischaracter was corrected from "excellent" to "very good". This alteration is made inblue ink andbears the initials of the reporting and not the countersigning officer. Similarly, in his report of 1984 his 5 general rating was originally entered as "excellent" and was corrected to "very good". This correction is again initialled by the reporting officer, who corrected her obvious mistake in entering thegeneralassessment oftheapplicant.Thisgroundis, therefore, dismissed as unfounded. 10 In thelight oftheabove Ifindthat itwasreasonably open to the respondent to reach the subjudice decision. As a result this recourse fails and is,therefore, dismissed. In 15 the circumstances Imake no order for costs. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 545