|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1989) 3A CLR 6
1988 March 30
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., SAVVIDES, LORIS, STYLIANIDES,
KOURRIS, JJ.]
ELENI HADJICHRISTOU,
Appellant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondents.
(Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 397)
Public Officers - Appointments - First entry posts - The Public Service Law. 1967 (Law 33/67,), section 18 - Commission entitled to seek assistance - Therefore, in selecting a candidate for the post of legal assistant, it could ask that one of the Senior Counsel of the Republic be present.
Public Officers - Appointments - First entry post - Striking superiority - Knowledge of "English" not a required qualification - Better knowledge of English - Does not establish such a superiority.
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, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to
costs.
Case refered to:
Hadjiloannou v. Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 1041.
Appeal.
Appeal against the judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Hadjianastasiou, J.) given on the 16th May, 1984 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 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 and instead of the applicant was dismissed.
C. Clerides, for the Appellant.
N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice D.G. Stylianides.
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.
The grounds of the appeal are:-
1. 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, changes were effected to the post of the Legal Assistant by supplementary appropriations and Laws.
2. The Scheme of Service should have required the qualification of good knowledge of English, which is not included in the Scheme published.
3. The Advisory Board wrongly sent a second list recommending 27 candidates.
4. Soterakis Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, representing the Attorney-General was present at the interviews held by the Public Service Commission, put questions and expressed his views regarding the evaluation of the performance of the candidates.
5. Undue weight was attributed to the interview.
6. The Public Service Commission did not make comparison of all the candidates, but selected nine candidates and then proceeded to evaluation and comparison.
7. The Commission disregarded the recommendation by the Director General of the Ministry of Justice accompanying the application of the applicant.
The post was a temporary post of Legal Assistant, a first entry post.
We have gone through the Budget, Law 45/80. The post was advertised by publication in the Official Gazette on 10th April, 1981.
The Scheme of Service included in the advertisement was that approved on 5th December, 1980. It was a valid one.
Law 20/81 came into force on 22nd April, 1981. The post was renamed.
The required qualifications under this Scheme were one year advocacy. Knowledge of English was not required.
Presence of Soterakis Georghiades:
This was a first entry post. The Commission is the appointing Authority. It is entitled, both under section 18 of the Public Service Law, 1967, (No. 33/67), (the "Law") and under the general principles of Administrative Law to seek assistance in the performance of its duty for the selection of the best suitable candidates for these specialized posts.
Soterakis Georghiades, Senior Counsel of the Republic, did not attend the meeting of the Commission in order to make recommendations under section 44 of the Law, as head of the Department. He was actually invited by the Commission under section 18 in order to assist the Commission in the exercise of its function.
At the interviews questions were put to the candidates relating to the duties of the posts. The questions put and the assessment of Soterakis Georghiades were legitimate and did not infringe either the statutory provisions, or the administrative principles governing the process in the exercise of its discretionary power for appointment.
The interviews were held in order to assess inter alia the merits of the candidates.
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
We do not share the view of counsel for the appellant that the Commission selected nine candidates without making a comparison of all the candidates. The Commission had before it all relevant material for each one of the candidates. What emerges from the record of the minutes is that 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 was not faulty.
The letter of the Attorney-General of 26th May, 1981, is a proper report of the Advisory Board. The omission in the letter of 9th May, 1981, of the name of the interested party Vassiliades, whose application, as was admitted by counsel for the appellant, was properly made in time, does not support the case of the appellant.
The 27 candidates recommended in the report of 26th May, 1981, signed by the Attorney-General, are the candidates found suitable for the office and recommended by the advisory Board for appointment. The appellant was one of the 27 recommended candidates.
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 material before it. The appellant failed to displace the presumption of regularity. The fact that the appellant studied in 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 Hadjiloannou v. Republic (1983) 3 C.LR. 1041.
The sub judice decision was reasonably open to the Commission.
This appeal fails and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.