|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1988) 3 CLR 2380
1988 December 2
[MALACHTOS, J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
ANDREAS M. CHRISTODOULIDES AND OTHERS,
Applicants,
v.
1. EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,
2. THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION,
Respondents.
(Cases Nos. 436/81, 503/81,1/82, 11/82 and 125/82).
Educational Officers—Promotions—Interviews—Held at two stages 18 months apart—Ground for annulment—Demetriades v. The Republic (1983)3 C,L,R. 842 followed.
Educational Officers—Promotions—Taking into consideration the "excellent impression which the members of the Commission have of the personalities" of the interested parties—Failure to state how the impression was gained—Ground for annulment—Moreover, the word "have" indicates personal knowledge—Ground for annulment.
In this case the interviews of the candidates were held in two stages, i.e. the first group during April, 1980, and the second during October, 1981.
The minutes of the Commission stated that "... taking especially into consideration ...... the excellent impression which the members of the Committee have for their personality...."
Held, annulling the sub judice decision: It could not be possible for its members to have clearly in mind when taking the sub judice decision on 21.11.1981, the views formed about candidates interviewed 18 months earlier as compared with the views formed from the interviews of candidates whom they saw only a few days before taking their final decision. (Demetriades v.The Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 842 adopted).
(2) It is not mentioned in the minutes of the Committee how its members acquired such excellent impression about the interested parties. If it was through the interview, they should have stated so as they did earlier on in the sub judice decision, about other factors. Moreover, the word "have" and not "formed", or any other similar word, implies some element of personal knowledge. (Demetriades case, supra, adopted).
Sub judice decision annulled.
No order as to costs.
Cases referred to:
Demetriadesv.The Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 842;
Recourses.
Recourses against the decision of the respondents to promote the interested parties to the post of Headmaster Secondary Education in preference and instead of the applicants.
A.S. Angelides, for the applicants in Cases Nos. 436/81 and 1/82.
L. Papaphilippou, for applicant in Case No. 503/81.
D. Demetriades, for applicant in Case No. 11/82.
E. Evripidou, for the applicant in Case No. 125/82.
R. Petridou (Mrs.), for respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. By the present recourses, which were heard together as they attack the same administrative act, the applicants seek a declaration of the court that the decision of the respondent Committee dated 2.11.81 to promote the interested parties to the post of Headmaster Secondary Education is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The relevant facts of the cases are the following:
On 7.10.81 the respondent Committee having been requested by the Ministry of Education to fill nine posts of Headmaster in Secondary Education, decided, inter alia, to call for an interview on the 14th and 15th October, 1981, those Assistant Headmasters eligible for promotion except those who had already been interviewed on 21, 22,23,24 and 25 April, 1980 on the basis of its decision dated 28.3.80.
At its meeting of 29.10.81 the Director of Higher and Secondary Education and the Director of Technical Education were present and made their relevant recommendations.
The next meeting was on 12.11.81 when it was ascertained that by inadvertence Assistant Headmaster K. Constantinides was not included in the recommendations of the Director for promotion to the post of Headmaster.
The respondent Committee then proceeded to consider the personal files and confidential reports of all candidates for promotion, the recomendations of the Directors and the candidates' merit, qualifications and seniority, as well as the opinion formed by its members during the interviews for each one of the candidates and decided to promote the interested parties to the post of Headmaster, Secondary Education, on the basis of all the above and "...... taking especially into consideration their administrative ability and/or their high academic qualifications and/or their long experience as well as the excellent impression which the membersof the Committee have for their personality.."
The following were promoted:
1. K. Constantinides, 2.N. Petsas, 3. G. Sepos, 4. A. Pyrros, 5. A. Ieorodiakonou, 6. A. Papanastassiou, 7. A. Hailos, 8. V. Christodoulou, 9. L. Fanis, 10. A. Hadjidas, 11.1. Demetriades, 12. Ph. Orphanides, 13. M. Makrigeorgis, H. A. Papastavrou, 15, Ch. Christou, 16. P. Papazachariou, 17. G Kalathas.
Applicant in Recourse No. 436/81 attacks the promotion of interested parties No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.
Applicants in Recourse No 503/81 attack the promotion of interested parties No. 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.
Applicant in Recourse No. 1/82 attacks the promotion of interested parties Nos. 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.
Applicant in Recourse No. 11/82 attacks the promotion of interested parties Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17.
Finally, applicant in Recourse No. 125/82 attacks the promotion of interested parties Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17.
It was contended by counsel for the applicants that the interval that elapsed between the first interviews in April 1980 and the interviews of October, 1981, and the time the sub judice decision was taken, that is 18 months later, was too great for the members of the respondent Committee to be possible to make a proper comparison between the candidates, in the absence of any record kept for the performance of each candidate at the interviews.
Relevant to the case before me is the case of Demetriadesv. The Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 842 which concerned promotions to the post of Assistant Headmaster, the facts of which are almost the same. There the sub judice decision was reached on the basis, inter alia, of interviews effected in two stages of 18 months apart, the first stage being in April, 1980, and the second October, 1981, with the sub judice decision being reached on the 2nd November, 1981. At page 853 of that report it is stated the following:
"I fully agree with the contention of counsel for applicants, that in the absence of any record in the relevant minutes of the meetings of the respondent Committee as to the performance and the special view formed about each candidate, it could not be possible for its members to have clearly in mind when taking the sub judice decision on 2.11.1981, the views formed about candidates interviewed 18 months earlier as compared with the views formed from the interviews of candidates whom they saw only a few days before taking their final decision. It has been held by this Court time and again that the absence of any indication in the records of the Educational Service Committee as to performance of the candidates at the interviews and their marking (if such system was adopted) touches the validity of a decision."
And further down at page 854 we read:
"Moreover, in the present case, in addition to the absence of any record as to the performance of candidates, especially in view of the fact that between the interviews of the first group and the second group an interval of more then 17 months elapsed, which by itself is sufficient to nullify the sub judicedecision, there are additional factors which indicate some irregularity in the whole procedure."
And also at p. 856:
"The other point raised the same statement in the sub judicedecision is with regard to the 'excellent impression that the members of the Committee have about their personality ......'. It is not mentioned in the minutes of the Committee how its members acquired such excellent impression about the interested parties. If it was through the interview, they should have stated so as they did earlier on the sub judice decision, about other factors. Moreover, the word 'have' and not 'formed', or any other similar word, implies some element of personal knowledge. In this respect it has been held in a number of cases by our Courts to a number of which reference is made in Angelidou v. The Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 520, at p. 526), that personal knowledge or information possessed by members of a collective organ may be validly taken into consideration provided that they merely strengthen the picture appearing in the files; otherwise it should be recorded in detail so as to enable judicial control".
I also feel that the present sub judice decision must also be annulled for the same reasons as the case of Demetriades (supra), because I find that the absence of any record of the "impression the members of the Committee have" for the candidates' personality renders its judicial control impossible, even more so in view of the great interval of time of 18 months that has elapsed between the two stages of the interviews.
In view of the above, I consider it unnecessary to pronounce on the remaining grounds of law put forward on behalf of the applicants. The recourses, therefore, succeed and the sub judice decision as regards all the interested parties is annulled.
On the question of costs I make no order.
Sub judice decision annulled.
No order as to costs.