(1989)1989June 16 [SAVVIDES,J.] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION ANDREAS MARANGOS AND ANOTHER, Applicants, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (CasesNos. 709/S6, 710/86) Public officers— Promotions —Merif, qualifications, seniority— Duty to weighallfactors together andselect the best candidate — Commission may attribute such significanceto the aforesaidcriteriaas may deem proper. 5 Publicofficers — Promotions — Striking superiority — Applicants rated excellent in all years since 1979 to 1985,whilstinterestedpartiesrated verygood for theyears 1979, 1980, 1981 and19S2andexcellentin1983, 1984and 1985— Qualifications more or less the same — Interested partiessenior asregards theprevious post by 9 1/2 yearsin respect of ]Q applicant Elefthcriou and 11years and 4 1/2 months in respect of applicant Marangos— Interestedparties recommended for promotion by Head of Department — Applicants did not establish striking superiority. 15 The facts affecting thepromotion in question appear in thesecondof the hereinabove Headnotes. In thelight of suchfacts, the Court decided that the applicants failed to establish strikingsuperiority. Asa result the Court dismissed the recourse. 20 Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 682 3 C.L.R. Marangos &Another v.Republic Casereferredto: Republic v. Roussos
(1987)3C.L.R.
- 5 Recourse. Recourseagainst thedecisionoftherespondent topromote theinterestedpartiestothepostofTechnicalSuperintendentin preference andinsteadoftheapplicants. 10 E.Efstathiou with G Stylianides,fortheApplicants. G. Erotocritou(Mrs),SeniorCounseloftheRepublic,forthe Respondent. 15 Cur.adv.vult. SAWIDES,J.readthefollowing judgment.Theapplicants bythesetworecourseswhichwereheardtogetheraspresenting 20 common questionsoflawandfact,challengethedecisionofthe respondent, published in the official Gazette of the Republic dated 12th September, 1986,by which the interested parties, namely, 1) Doloros Pitsillides and 2) Liasis Savva, were promotedtothepostofTechnicalSuperintendentinsteadofand 25 inpreference tothem. The applicants are holding the post of Senior Technician, which was also held by the interested parties at the material time.Allpartieswerepromotedtotheabovepost onthesame 30 date,that is,the 15thNovember,
- Following a request by the appropriate authority for the fillingofthesevacanciesinthepostofTechnicalSuperintendent (which is a promotion post)the Departmental Committee, to 35 which the matter was referred, submitted its report to the respondentPublicServiceCornmission(tobereferredtoasthe PSC), by letter dated 9th May,
- By such report six candidates were recommended for promotion, amongstwhom theapplicantsandtheinterestedparties. 40 The PSC, at its meeting dated 16th May, 1986, having consideredthereport oftheDepartmental Committee,decided 683 Savvides, J. Marangos &Another v. Republic
(1989)to take into consideration, in filling the vacancies in question, four othercandidates whowerehighlyrated intheir confidential reports andadjourned thematterto itsnext meeting. The Head ofthe Department, whoattendedthemeetingofthePSConthe 30th May, 19S6, recommended the interested parties and 5 expressed his views about the applicants and the other candidates. The PSC then, after considering all the relevant material before it. with special reference to the confidential reportsandtheseniority oftheparties,proceededtoselectthree candidates amongst whom the interested parties for promotion 10 to the post in question. The promotions were published in the official Gazette oftheRepublicdatedthe 12thSeptember, 1986. as aresult of which the present recourses were filed. Counsel for applicants argued,byhiswritten addressthat the 15 respondent placed undue weight to the recent confidential reports of the interested parties whilst it failed to place the proper weight to those of the applicants who were strikingly better than the interested parties regarding merits. He also argued that the recommendations of the Head of the 20 Department were not properly made in so far as he did not recommend the applicants andthat his description of the work of interested party Liasis wasmisleading and ledthe PSCto act under a misconception of fact. 25 The PSC in effecting promotions has to take into consideration the merits, qualifications and seniority of the candidates as well as their confidential reports and the recommendations oftheHeadoftheDepartment (section44
(2)and
(3)of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law No. 33/67). The 30 manifest duty of the PSC is to weigh all factors together and select the best candidates for promotion and it may attribute such significance to them as may be deemed proper (see Republic v.Roussos
(1987)3C.L.R. 1217). The merits of the candidates are reflected in their confidential reports, which, in 35 the present case,were taken intoconsideration by the PSC.As itemanates therefrom both applicants wereratedas"excellent" inallyearssince 1979,whilsttheinterested parties wereratedas "very good" in 1979, 1980, 1981and 1982andas"excellent"in 1983, 1984and 1985.The PSC also took into consideration the 40 qualifications of the candidates which, as it appears from appendix 3 to the opposition, are more or less the same 684 3 C.L.R. 5 Marangos & Another v. Republic Savvides, .1. regarding all candidates.Inrespect of thematter of seniority the PSC noted that both applicants and the interested parties were promotedtothepost of SeniorTechnician onthesame dateand therefore it hadtoresort to their previous posts, on thebasisof which it was found that theinterested parties were senior tothe applicants. In fact their seniority amounts to 9 1/2 years in the case of applicant Eleftheriou and to 11 years and4 1/2 months in the case of applicant Marangos. 10 The Head of the Department recommended the interested parties for promotion. As it emanates from its minutes dated 30th May, 1986, the PSC took note of the fact that the applicants in their reports were rated its "excellent" in more years than the interested parties. Nevertheless weighing all 15 factors together andafter taking intoconsideration the fact that the interested parties hadalso excellent reports in thelast three years the PSC decided in view also of their seniority, to adopt the recommendations of the Head of the Department and promote the interested parties. Although the applicants had 20 better reports thantheinterested parties,thelast were found,on the basis of all criteria taken into consideration and weighed together, to be the most suitable for promotion. 25 Onthematerial before me I have cometotheconclusionthat the applicants failed to establish striking superiority over the interested parties and the sub judice decision was reasonably open to the respondent. What remainstobeconsidered istheargument of counsel for applicants that the recommendations of the Head of the Department regarding interested party Liasis were misleading. Counsel argued that what was said about this candidate that he is the assistant Head of the Construction Department was not true as this position was held by another person, who is acivil 35 engineer, 1st grade. I think there has been a misinterpretation on the part of counsel of the words of the Head of the Department. What was infact saidby himisthat: "Συστήνεται ο Σάββας Λιασής ο οποίος εργάζεται στην υπηρεσία κατα σκευών τουτμήματος. Είναιοβοηθόςτουποοϊσταΐίένουτης 40 υπηρεσίαςαυτής..." (Sawas Liasis is recommendedwho works in theconstructionserviceof the department.Heis the assistant of the Headof thisservice.... (Theunderlining is mine). This fact 30 685 Savvides, J. Marangos &Another v. Republic
(1989)appears alsoon thefirst pageof hisconfidential reports forthe last threeyears where thefollowing are stated inthe paragraph describing themain dutiesof thecandidateduring theyear: "Βοηθός του Μηχανολόγου Μηχανικού, Προϊσταμένου 5 της Ηλεκτρομηχανολογικής Υπηρεσίας του Τμήματος ΑναπτύξεωςΥδάτων....". (Assistant to the Mechanical Engineer, Head of the Electromechanical Service of the Water Development 10 Department). It is obvious from theabovethatcounsel for therespondent misconceived the words "assistant to the Engineer" (a technician)asmeaning'theAssistant Engineer" whomustbea 15 qualified engineer. Itdoesnotemanatefrom thematerial before me that there was either any misdirection on the part of the Head of the Department or any misconception on the part of the PSC in this respect. As a result this argument of counsel cannot standandit istherefore dismissed. 20 Intheresult this recoursefails anditishereby dismissedwith no order for costs. Recourse dismissed. No order as 25 tocosts. 686