← Κύπρος

clr/1989/1989_3A_6.pdf

(1989)!9SS March 30 URIANTAFYLLIDES. P..SAWIDES. LORIS.STYLIANIDES. KOURRISJJ-] ELENI HADJICHRISTOU. Appellant. v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS.THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Respondents. (RevisionalJurisdiction Appeal No. 397) Public Officers —Appointments —First entryposts — ThePublicService Lav·'. 1967 (Law 33/67). section IS — Commission entitled to seek assistance— Therefore, in selecting a candidatefor the post oflegal assistant,it couldask thatone oftheSenior Counselof theRepublicbe present. 5 Public Officers—Appointments —First entrypost —Striking superiority — Knowledge of "English" not a required qualification — Better knowledge of English — Doesnot establish such asuperiority. 10 Appellants complaints as regards appointment of the interested parties to the sub judice post appear in the judgment. In the light of the principles summarised hereinabove and having reached the conclusion that the selection of the interested parties was reasonably open to the Public Service Commission, theCourt dismissed the appeal. 15 Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. Case referedto: 20 Hadjiloannou v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.
  1. 6 3 C.L.R. Hadjichristou v. Republic Appeal. Appeal againstthejudgment ofaJudgeoftheSupreme Court of Cyprus (Hadjianastasiou. J.) given on the 16th May. 1984 5 (Revisional Jurisdiction CaseNo.430/81)whereby the recourse of the appellant for the annulment of the appointment of the four interested parties to the post of Legal Assistant in preference andinstead ofthe applicant was dismissed. 10 C.Clerides, for the Appellant. IS. Charalanibous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents. 15 Cur. adv. vuk. TRLANTAFYLLIDES.P.: ThejudgmentoftheCourtwillbe delivered by Mr. Justice D.G.Stylianides. 20 STYLIANIDES,J.: By this appeal the appellant attacks the Judgment of a Judge of this Court, whereby her recourse for annulment of the appointment of the four interested parties to the post of Legal Assistant in preference and instead of the applicant was dismissed. 25 Thegrounds of the appeal are:- 30
  2. The Scheme of Service published in the advertisement of the posts in the Official Gazette on 10th April. 1981.No. 652, was not the proper Scheme, as in the meantime, changeswereeffected tothepost oftheLegal Assistantby supplementary appropriations andLaws. 35
  3. The Scheme of Service should have required the qualification of good knowledge of English, which is not included inthe Scheme published.
  4. The Advisory Board wrongly sent a second list recommending 27candidates. 40
  5. Soterakis Georghiades. Senior Counsel of the Republic. representing the Attorney-General was present at the 7 Stylianides, J. Hadjichristou v. Republic
(1989)interviews held by the Public Service Commission, put questions and expressed his views regarding the evaluation of the performance of thecandidates.
  1. Undue weight was attributed tothe interview. 5
  2. ThePublicService Commission didnot make comparison of allthe candidates,butselected ninecandidates andthen proceeded to evaluation and comparison. 10
  3. The Commission disregarded therecommendation by the Director General oftheMinistry ofJustice accompanying the application of the applicant. The post was a temporan' post of Legal Assistant, a first 15 entry post. Wehavegonethrough theBudget, Law45/
  4. The post was advertised bv publication in the Official Gazette on 10th April.
  5. ' 20 The Scheme of Service included in the advertisement was that approved on 5th December, 1980.It wasa valid one. Law20/81cameintoforce on22ndApril, 1981.Thepostwas 25 renamed. Therequired qualifications underthis Schemewere one year advocacy. Knowledge of English wasnot required. 30 Presence of Soterakis Georghiades: Thiswasafirst entry post.TheCommission isthe appointing Authority. It is entitled, both under section 18 of the Public Service Law,
  6. (No. 33/67), (the "Law") and under the 35 general principles of Administrative Law to seek assistance in the performance of its duty for theselection of thebest suitable candidates for these specialized posts. Soterakis Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, did 40 not attend the meeting of the Commission in order to make recommendations under section 44 of the Law, as head of the 8 3 C.L.R. Hadjichristou v. Republic Stylianides, J. Department. Hewasactually invited bythe Commission under section 18in order to assist the Commission in the exercise of its function. 5 At the interviews questions were put to the candidates relating to the duties of the posts. The questions put and the assessment ofSoterakis Georghiadeswerelegitimate anddidnot infringe either the statutory provisions, or the administrative principles governing the process in the exercise of its 10 discretionary powerfor appointment. The interviews were held in order to assess inter alia the merits of thecandidates. 15 We have considered the sub judice decision. We were not persuaded that undue weight was given to the performance of the candidates at the interviews. Comparison 20 Wedonot sharetheviewofcounselfortheappellant thatthe Commission selected nine candidates without making a comparison of allthecandidates.TheCommission hadbefore it all relevant material for each one of the candidates. What 25 emerges from therecord of theminutes isthat the Commission after making a comparison of all the candidates, selected and listed nine as the best suitable for the post and gave its reason for each one of them. This wasnot faulty. 30 The letter of the Attorney-General of 26th May, 1981,is a properreport oftheAdvisory Board. Theomission intheletter of 9th May, 1981, of the name of the interested party Vassiliades, whose application, as was admitted by counsel for the appellant, wasproperly made in time, does not support the 35 caseof the appellant. The27candidates recommended in thereport of 26th May. 1981,signedbytheAttorney-General, arethe candidates found suitablefor theoffice andrecommended bythe advisory Board 40 for appointment. The appellant was one of the 27 recommended candidates. 9 Stylianides. J. Hadjichristou v. Republic
(1989)The complaint of the appellant that the letter of recommendation by the Director General of the Ministry of Justice, at which the appellant was posted as Administrative officer is unfounded. This letter was before the Commission. who as stated in the minutes, took into consideration the 5 material before it. The appellant failed to displace the presumption ofregularity. Thefactthattheappellantstudiedin England and, as she alleges, has better knowledge of English than the interested parties, does not establish striking superiority as this expression was defined in the case of 10 Hadjifoannour.Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R.1041. The sub judice decision was reasonably open to the Commission. 15 Thisappeal fails andisdismissed. Noorderastocosts. Appealdismissedwithnoorderas 20 tocosts. 10

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.