|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1989) 3A CLR 195
1989 February 7
[SAVVIDES, J.J]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
CHARALAMBOS N. CHARALAMBOUS,
Applicant,
v.
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondent.
(Case No. 753/85)
Public officers -Appointments -First entry and promotion post -Interview, performance act -Weight -Greater than in cases concerning promotion posts.
Public officers -Appointments -First entry and promotion post -Head of department -Recommendations -Rightly taken into consideration.
Public officers -Appointments -First entry and promotion post -Striking superiority.
By means of this recourse the applicant inpugns the decision of the respondent Commission to appoint the interested parties to the post of Foreman in the Public Works Department.
The principles applied by the Court, in dismissing the Recourse, sufficiently appear in the hereinabove Headnotes. The interested parties had been recommended by the Head of the Department and have been rated better than the interested parties at the relevant interview before the Commission both by the Head of the Department and the Commission itself.
Recourse dismissed with no order as to
costs.
Cases referred to:
Christoudias v. Republic (1984) 3 CL.R. 657.
Avraam and Another v. Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 2321,
Nicolaidou v. Republic (1985) 3 CL.R. 2492.
Recourse.
Recourse against the decision of the respondent to appoint the interested parties to the post of Foreman in the Public Works Department in preference and instead of the applicant.
A. Markides, for the Applicant.
S. Mateas, Counsel of the Republic B, for the Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
SAVVIDES, J. read the following judgment. The applicant challenges the decision of the respondent published in the official Gazette of the Republic dated the 21st June, 1985, whereby the interested partied, namely, 1. Sotirios Demetriou, 2. Sophoclis Costa, 3. Costas Savva Spyrou. 4. Andreas Stylianou and 5. Andreas Tsiakkoura were appointed to the post of Foreman in the Public Works Department instead of and in preference to him.
The recourse was originally directed against the appointment of twelve interest parties, but it was later withdrawn against the remaining seven in view of the fact that service had not been effected on them.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows:
The applicant is working in the Public Works Department since 1956 on a daily or weekly basis. The interested parties were also working at the material time, in the same department on a similar basis, their employment starting between 1975 -1981.
On the 2nd April, 1983, twelve vacancies in the post of Foreman which is a first entry post in the aforesaid Department were advertised in the official Gazette of the Republic. The Departmental Committee which was set up for the purpose of considering the applications by its report dated the 6th July, 1984, which was submitted to the respondent Commission, recommended 41 candidates amongst whom the applicant and the interested parties.
The respondent interviewed 32 candidates between the 1st March and the 11th March, 1985. On the 11th March, 1985, after the interviews were concluded, the respondent heard the views of the Head of the Department with regard to the performance of the candidates during the interviews. The respondent met again on the 12th March, 1985, and after evaluating the performance of the candidates during the interviews proceeded to the selection of the interested parties as the most suitable for appointment to the post in question. The appointment of the interested parties was published in the official Gazette of the Republic dated the 21st June, 1985, as a result of which the present recourse was filed.
Counsel for applicant argued that the applicant was superior to the interested parties having successfully performed various jobs entrusted to him. The interested parties are inferior to him regarding experience and have not been entrusted with the performance of any jobs under their absolute supervision. He also argued that the respondent failed to consider the seniority of the applicant and did not conduct a due inquiry into the case. Lastly counsel argued that undue weight was placed by the respondent to the performance of the candidates during the interviews.
As stated in a number of authorities in cases of this nature the applicant has to show striking superiority over the interested parties.
As I said earlier, the post is a first entry post. All parties however, were working in the Department on a casual basis. After the conclusion of the interviews the Head of the Department concerned expressed his views regarding the performance of the candidates both during the interviews and in their work. In this respect the applicant was evaluated as "average" both with regard to his performance at the interview and in his work. All interested parties on the other hand were evaluated by the same person as "excellent" both at the interview and in their work. The respondent Commission evaluated the applicant as "good" and the interested parties as "very good". There is no dispute that all parties possess the qualifications required by the scheme of service for the post. As to the factor of seniority such factor only counts in cases of promotion and not appointment to first entry posts; and then again only if all other factors. are more or less equal.
Lastly on the argument that undue weight was placed to the performance of the candidates during the interviews, it has been said in a number of cases that the weight to be placed to the performance of candidates during interviews is greater in cases of first entry as compared to promotion posts. (See in this respect Christoudias v. The Republic (1984) 3 C.L.R. 657 at p.664; Avraam and Another v. The Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 2321, at p. 2325; Nicolaidou v. The Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 2492 at pp. 2499-2500).
In the circumstances of the present case I find that the weight attached to the performance of the candidates during the interviews was not an undue one. In any event it was not the only factor relied upon by the respondent who had before it and took into consideration the views of the Head of the Department regarding the performance of the candidates in their work.
In view of the above I find that the sub judice decision was reasonably open to the respondent and the applicant failed to establish striking superiority over the interested parties.
In the result this recourse fails and is hereby dismissed with no order for costs.
Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs.