(1985) 3 CLR 2269
[*2269] 1985 November 23
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146
OF THE CONSTITUTION
SPYROS LAKATAMITIS,
Applicant,
v.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondent.
(Case No. 301/83).
Public Officers-Promotions-Impressions formed at the interviews of candidates-Weight to be attached to such impressions.
Administrative act-Reasoning of-Promotions of Public Officers-No reasons given why applicants seniority and better confidential reports were disregarded-Sub judice decision lacks due reasoning.
The applicant impugns by this recourse the promotion of the two interested parties Dr. Ph. Theofanous and Dr. C. Mallis to the post of Chief Medical Officer.
The respondent Commission in evaluating the performance of the candidates at the interviews rated the applicant as “good”, interested party Theofanous as “very good” and interested party Mallis as “very very good”.
The applicant was at the material time senior to interested party Theofanous by nine months and to interested party Mallis by five years. The applicant and the interested parties had all been rated, excellent in the confidential re ports for 1982, but the applicant had better confidential reports than the interested parties for all the earlier years.
Held, annulling the sub judice decision: [*2270]
(1) This Court repeatedly pointed out that there should not be given undue and disproportionate weight to the impressions formed at the interviews of candidates. In this case it is clear that such impressions became the decisive factor leading up to the sub judice promotions.
(2) Moreover, the sub judice decision lacks due reasoning as no reasons were given why the applicant’s seniority and his better confidential reports were disregarded.
Sub judice decision annulled.
No order to costs.
Cases referred to:
Triantafyllides v. The Republic (1970) 3 C.L.R. 235;
Savva v. The Republic (1980) 3 C.L.R. 675;
Smyrnios v. The Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 124;
Livadas v. The Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 506.
Recourse
Recourse against the decision of the respondent to promote the interested parties to the post of Chief Medical Officer in preference and instead of the applicant.
P. Ioannides, for the applicant.
A. Vladimirou, for the respondent.
A. Panayiotou, for interested party C. Mallis.
K. Talarides, for interested party Ph. Theofanous.
Cur. adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant complains against the decision of the respondent Public Service Commission, reached on the 20th April 1983, by mans of which there were promoted, instead of him, to the post of Chief Medical Officer Dr. Ph. Theofanous and Dr. Mallis (to be referred to hereinafter as the “interested parties”).
The vacancies in question were advertised in the Official [*2271] Gazette of the Republic on the 4th June 1982 and seven candidates, including the applicant and the two interested parties, applied for promotion thereto.
Pursuant to section 36 of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67), a Departmental Board was set up and on the 28th January 1983 it recommended as suitable for promotion four candidates amongst whom were the applicant and the two interested parties.
The respondent Commission interviewed, on the 30th March 1983, in the presence of the Director of Medical and Public Health Services, Dr. Andreas Markides, the four candidates who had been recommended by the said Board and, also; another candidate who is not a party to the present proceedings.
At the meeting of the Commission of the 16th April 1983 Dr. Markides, in evaluating the performance of the candidates at the interviews, rated the applicant as “very very good” and as better than interested party. Theofanous, whom he rated as “very good” He also rated as “very good” interested party Mallis.
Then, the Commission, having taken into consideration the views of Dr. Markides, proceeded to make its own evaluation of the performance of the candidates at the interviews and rated the applicant as “good”, interested party Theofanous as “very good” and interested party Mauls as “very very good”
On the 20th April 1983 the Commission, after taking into account the merit, qualifications, experience, seniority and suitability for the post in question of the candidates, decided that the two interested parties, Theophanous and Mallis, were more suitable and promoted them to such post as from the. 1st May 1983.
The applicant and the interested parties were, at the material time, Senior Medical Officers, having all been promoted to such post on the 15th September 1982. Consequently, pursuant to the provisions of section 46(2) of Law 33/67, as amended by section 5(b) of the Public Service (Amendment) Law, 1983 (Law 10/83), their seniority had [*2272] to be determined by reference to the dates of their promotions to the immediately lower post of Medical Officer, Class 1. The applicant was promoted to such post on the 1st October 1970, interested party Theofanous on the 1st July 1971, and interested party Mallis on the 1St October 1975. Thus, the applicant was, at the material time, senior to interested party Theofanous by nine months and to interested party Mallis by five years.
The applicant and the interested parties had all been rated as excellent in the confidential reports for 1982, but the applicant had better confidential reports than the interested parties for all the earlier years.
One of the main submissions which was put forward by counsel for the applicant has been that the respondent. Commission attributed undue weight to the impressions created by the candidates at the interviews with the result that such impressions became a decisive factor which brought about the decision to promote the two interested parties instead of the applicant.
It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that there should not be given undue and disproportionate weight to the impressions created by candidates at the interviews stage (see, inter alia, Triantafyllides v. The Republic, (1970) 3 C.L.R. 235, 245, Savva v. The Republic, (1980) 3 C.L.R. 675, 691-695, Smyrnios v. The Republic, (1983) 3 C.L.R. 124, 135, and Livadas v. The Republic, (1985) 3 C.L.R. 506, 511, 512)
In the present case there, indeed, emerges clearly from the relevant minutes of the respondent Commission that much undue importance has placed by the Commission on the impressions which it formed about the performance of the candidates when interviewed and that these impressions became a decisive factor leading up to the preference by the Commission of the two interested parties instead of the applicant. Moreover, there was not stated specifically in such minutes any cogent reason for disregarding the seniority of the applicant, as well as his better confidential reports, in comparison with the two interested parties, and, consequently, the sub judice decision lacks due reasoning. [*2273]
As a result the sub judice decision cannot be treated as the product of a proper exercise of the relevant discretionary powers of the respondent Commission and it has, therefore, to be annulled as having been reached contrary to the relevant principles of administrative law and in excess and abuse of powers.
I shall not, however, make any order as to the costs of this case.
Sub judice decision annulled.
No order as to costs.
cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο