1977 Febr. 16 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHJOU, Applicant, and THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Case No. 455/73). 5 10 15 20 25 Public Officers—Promotions—Senior Supervisor of accounts—Applicant not recommended by Head of Department—Professional friction between them—Nature of their relations within knowledge of the Commission—Whether Commission had to institute an inquiry in this connection—Acceptance by Commission of recommendation of Head of Department after giving proper weight to all other factors appertaining to each one of the candidates—Does not mean that Head of Department dictated to the Commission the course which it adopted and that the latter has not exercised its own discretion in the matter—Seniority—Open to the Commission not to treat it as the decisive factor, in the light of other at least equal weighty considerations—Reasoning of sub judice decision—Mere fact that Commission adopted the reasons given by Head of Department does not mean that sub judice decision was not duly reasoned—Reasonably open to the Commission to prefer the interested party in view, also, of contents of confidential re/ ports. Public Officers—Promotions—Head of Department—Open to him to state before the Public Service Commission that applicant was "of difficult character"—And he is not prevented from doing so by the wording of the form prescribed for the making of the annual confidential reports. Public Officers—Promotions—Scheme of service—Requiring a "good general education of a standard not below that of a leaving certificate of a Secondary School"—Fact that interested party graduated from a four-year Secondary Education 35 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGfflOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGfflOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) School notamatterof any material significance in the circumstances of this case. Bias—Not thesame asprofessionalfriction. Head of Department—Professional frictionbetweenhim andacandidate for promotion—Recommendations before Public Service Commission—Manner of descriptionofapplicant. 5 Administrative Law—Duereasoning—Public Officers—Promotions —Mere fact that Commission adopted the reasonsgiven by Head of Departmentdoes not mean that the sub judicedecisionwasnotdulyreasoned. 10 WordsandPhrases—Professionalfriction—Bias. The applicant in this recourse challenged the validity of the promotion of the interested party to the post of Senior Supervisorof Accounts, in theTreasury Department. The Head of Department, who was present at the relevant 15 meeting of the Public Service Commission, stated before the Commission* that though the applicant was the most senior officer of his grade, he was of a difficult character and only lately started showing more interest in his work. The Head of Department then stated that the interested party, who was the 20 next in seniority, was the best and most suitable officer for promotion to the said post and recommended him for this purpose. In taking the sub judicedecision the Commission stated the following: "After considering the above {editor's note: the 25 views of the Head of Department) and after taking into consideration all the facts appertaining to each one of all the officers serving in the post of Supervisor of Accounts, and after giving proper weight to the merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of these candidates, as shown in their 30 Personal Files and in their Annual Confidential Reports, the Commission agreed to follow the recommendation of the Head of Department". The Commission accordingly decided that the interested party was on the whole the best and it promoted 'him to the 35 said post. *Seeits f"fa"tffl at pp.40-42 post. 36 Counselfor the applicantcontended: 5 10 15 20 (a) That the Head of Department, who was present at the relevant meeting of the respondent Commission, recommended for promotion the interested party instead of the applicant,because he was biased against the applicant. (b) That-the Head of Department dictated to the Com mission the course which it adopted and that the Commission did not exercise its own discretion in the matter. (c) That it was not open to the Head of Departmentto tell the Commission that applicant was "of a diffi cult character" because by doing so he was intro ducing a criterion not envisaged by the prescribed form for the making of the annual confidential re ports. (d) That theseniority of the applicant was wrongly over looked, especially as it was a case of filling a pro motion post and experience was a material consideration. (e) That the sub judicedecision was not duly reasoned. 25 30 35 (f) That the interested party was "hardly eligible for promotion" under the relevant scheme of service be cause theSecondary Education School which he has attended was a four-year, and not a six-year Se condary EducationSchool. What gaverise to contention(a) above was the existence of professional friction between the applicant and his Head of Department; and regarding this contention the vital issue was not whether and to what extent, due to the friction that did, undoubtedly, develop between them,the relations between the applicant and the 'Head of Department were strained, but whether the respondent knew about such friction to a suffi cient extent, so as to weigh accordingly, with this factor in mind, the recommendation made to it by the Head of Depart ment, and, also, to be in a position to decide whether any further inquiry in this respect was necessary. Ίη resolving this issue theCourthad evidence before it tothe effect thatcertain documents wherein an allegation was being put forward that 37 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS 'HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADII GEORGHIOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) the Head of Department was ill-disposed towards the applicant were brought to the notice of the respondent Commission on the date when the sub judicedecision was taken (pp. 44-45 post). Held,
(1)(After concluding that therewasprofessionalfriction betweenapplicantand his Head of Departmentandthat professional friction is not the same as bias, althoughsometimes they may be the cause or consequenceof eachother videp. 43 post)that it has been established,.beyond reasonable doubt, that the Commission was not acting under any misconception regarding, or in ignorance of, the actual state of the personal relations between the applicant and his Head of Department; that it was up to the Commission to decide, once it knew about the nature of such relations, whether any further inquiry into this aspect was necessary and, apparently, it did not decide that such inquiry was needed; that this Court cannot substitute, in this respect, its own discretion in the placeof that of the Commission; that it was reasonably open to the Commission not to institute an inquiry in this connection since it knew already, from the material before it, what was the relevant situation; and that, accordingly, contention (a) must fail.
(2)(
- a)That as it is tobederived from itsminutes, theCommission reached its sub judice decision on the basis of all the facts appertaining to each one of the officers serving in the post of Supervisor of Accounts, and after giving proper weight to the merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of theseofficers, asthey were shown in their personal files and in the annual confidential reports about them; that its minutes make it clear that it was only after it had considered the aforesaid factors that the Commission agreed to accept the recommendation of the Head of Department in favour of promoting the interested party; that, therefore, this Court cannot agree with counsel for the applicant that the Head of Department dictated to the Commission the course which it adopted and that the Commission did not exercise its own discretion in the matter; and that, accordingly, contention (
- b)must fail. (
- b)(After referring to the confidentialreports of applicant and the interestedparty—vide pp 46-49 post) that in taking the sub judice decision the Commission relied, inter alia,on the annual confidential reports about the candidates concerned; and that the contents of these reports show that it was, indeed, reasonably open to the respondent Commission to prefer the interested party. 38
(3)That when a Head of Department describes a subordinate of his to the Commission, in circumstances such as those in which the Head of Department spoke about the applicant at the Commission's meeting of July 10, 1973,he is not to be prevented from presenting a full and proper picture to the Commission by the wording of the form prescribed for the making of the annual confidential reports; that, in any event, the observation of the Head of Department that the applicant was "of a difficult character" was obviously related to the criteria of "adaptability" and of "ability to co-operate with colleagues", if not, also, of "courtesy in dealing with the public", all of which are expressly mentioned in the said form; that, therefore, this Court cannot accept as correct the contention of counsel for the applicant that it was not open to the Head of Department to tell the Commission that the applicant was "of a difficult character" because by doing so he was introducing a criterion not envisaged by the prescribed form for the makingof the annual confidential reports; and that, accordingly,contention (c) must fail.
(4)That seniority was expressly mentioned in the relevant minutes of the Commission as a factor that had been taken into account and it was open to the Commission not to treat it as the decisive one and to prefer the interested party in the light of other, at least equally weighty, considerations; and that, accordingly,contention (d) must fail. 30 35 40
(5)That the mere fact that, to a certain extent, the Commission adopted the reasons givenby the Head of Department cannot be treated as a ground for saying that its decision was not duly reasoned; that, on the contrary, this Court is of the opinion that by setting out in extenso in its minutes the views of the Head of Department theCommission did strive to give an as adequate as possible account of the reasons which led it to the conclusion to promote the interested party; and that, accordingly, contention (e) must fail.
(6)That the relevant scheme of service requires a "good general education of a standard not below that of a leaving certificate of a secondary school"; that when this initial scholastic qualification is examined in the context of all other qualifications entailing professional knowledge and experience, which are prescribed in the scheme of service, and which the interested party did possess, the fact that he graduated from a four-year secondary education school cannot be, really, treated 39 1977 •Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGfflOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) as a matter of any material significance especially as it has not been suggested that the interested party did not qualify at all for promotion, under the scheme of service, (because he graduated from such a secondary education school; and that, accordingly,contention (
- f)mustfail. 5 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent Public Service Commission to promote the interested party to the post of Senior Supervisor of Accounts, in the Treasury Department, in preference and instead of the applicant. 10 A. Emilianides with L. Papaphilippou and Ph. Valiandis, for the applicant. R. Gavrielides, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 15 The following judgment was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLUDES, P.: By this recourse the applicant seeks the annulment of the promotion to thepost of Senior Supervisor of Accounts, in the Treasury Department, of Mr. S. Demetriades (hereinafter to be referred to as the 20 "interested party"); the interested party has been notified of these proceedings, but has not chosen to take part in them. The post of Senior Supervisor of Accounts is a promotion post, as it appears from therelevant scheme of service 25 which is appended to the Opposition; thepromotion thereto of the interested party was made by a decision of the respondent Public Service Commission, which was taken on July 10, 1973. The Commission's minutes are, also, appended to the Opposition, and they read as follows:30 " 1 . Filling of vacancies in the Treasury Department. Ref. item 3 of the minutes of 3.7.73. Mr. St. Nathanael, Accountant-General, present. (
- a)Senior Supervisor of Accounts: One vacancy (permanent). The post of Senior Supervisor of Accounts is a 40 35 Promotion Post from the immediately lower post of Supervisor of Accounts. The Accountant-General stated that the officer to beselected for promotion tothe abovepost willhave to take charge of a large Accounts Section in a Department or of a Section in the Treasury. The Accountant-General added that candidates should be able to take decisions on certain matters and also they should have abilities to supervise staff. 10 The Commission then considered the merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of all officers serving in the post of Supervisor of Accounts, as reflected in their Personal Files and in their Annual Confidential Reports. 15 Withregardto Mr.E. HadjiGeorghiou, whoisthe most senior officer of his grade, the Accountant-General stated that theofficer inquestion isnow attached to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; previously he had worked in the Internal Audit and in the Motor Car Registry of the Treasury Department. The Accountant-General added that Mr. HadjiGeorghiou is of a difficult character and only lately started showing more interest in his work. 20 25 30 35 40 As regards Mr. S. Demetriades, the AccountantGeneral stated that this officer, who is next in seniority, is very good in his work; he is an excellent officer all through; he has never given any cause for complaint and, moreover, hehasmanaged to uphold theprestigeof theoffice; on account of hisverygood qualities .and abilities, Mr. Demetriades has represented the Treasury Department at various meetings very ably.TheAccountant-General added that hebelieved that Mr. Demetriades was the best and most suitable officer for promotion to the above post and accordingly recommended him for this purpose. The Accountant-General added further that the remainingcandidates werenot sogood asMr. Demetriades. After considering the above and after taking into consideration all the facts appertaining to each one of alltheofficers serving in thepost of Supervisorof 41 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGfflOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBLIC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) Accounts, and after giving proper weight to themerits, qualifications, seniority, service and experience of these candidates, as shown in their Personal Files and in their Annual Confidential Reports, the Commission agreed to follow the recommendation of the 5 Head of Department. The Commission accordingly decided that Mr. Sawas Demetriades was on the wholethebest and that hebepromoted tothepermanent post of Senior Supervisor of Accounts, w.e.f. 1.8.73". 10 As it appears from a comparative table, which is appended to theOpposition, the applicant entered thepublic service in November 1945, as aTemporary Clerk, and he was, eventually, seconded to thepost of Supervisor ofAccounts—which is a post in the grade immediately below 15 that of Senior Supervisor of Accounts—on December 1, 1965, and waspermanently appointed to suchpost onJanuary 1, 1967.On theother hand, theinterested partyentered the publicservice, as a Temporary Clerk, on February 1, 1947, and became a Supervisor of Accounts on 20 April 1, 1967. Asit isstated in therelevant minutesof therespondent Commission the applicant was, at the material time, the most senior officer in his grade and the interested party wasnext in seniority. 25 Themainissuewhichhasbeenraised, inrelation tothis recourse, by counsel for the applicant, is that the respondent Commission relied on biased recommendations and reports, with the result that, in theabsence of aproperinquiry on its part, it was labouring under a material mis- 30 conception; and,inthisrespect,ithas, also,been contended that there has occurred misrepresentation or concealment of facts regarding the merits and qualifications of the applicant and of the interested party. It has not been suggested that the Commission itself was biased against 35 the applicant; what has been alleged is that the Accountant-General, Mr. St. Nathanael, under whom comes the Treasury Department and whowaspresent at therelevant meeting of the Commission, recommended for promotion the interested party instead of the applicant, because he 40 wasbiased against theapplicant. Many documents havebeen produced, during thehear42 ing of this case, in an effort to establish the above contention of counsel for the applicant. I do not think that I have to refer exhaustively to their contents; some of them, such as exhibits 7—12,19, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 29, were addres5 sed to Mr. Nathanael by the applicant during the period from April 5, 1969, to October 10, 1970, and others, such as exhibits 17, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28 and 30, were addressed by Mr. Nathanael to the applicant during the period from November 25, 1969, to September 29, 1970; some of 10 them are letters which were written in reply to each other. In addition to the above documents, to which I have referred, specifically, I have, of course, taken into account, too, all the other documents which have been produced before meby theparties during the hearing. 35 I have reached the conclusion, without any difficulty whatsoever, that there was, indeed, professional friction between the applicant and his Head of Department, Mr. Nathanael; but, it should be borne in mind that professional friction is not the same as bias, although sometimes 15 they may be the cause, or consequence, of each other; and I have not been satisfied, on the basis of the material before me, that it has been established that the professional friction between Mr. Nathanael and the applicant was the cause of, or resulted in, bias on the part of the former 20 against the latter. The said professional friction existed even though the applicant has not been working all the time directly under Mr. Nathanael in the office of the Accountant-General; for certain periods of time, hewas posted, while still being 25 a member of the service under Mr. Nathanael, at other Ministries or Departments, such as theMinistry of Labour and Social Insurance, the Motor Car Registry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I consider it useful to quote in full a letter addressed by 30 Mr. Nathanael to the applicant on September 29. 1970, (exhibit 27), because it illustrates the climate which existed between the Accountant-General and the applicant, as a subordinate of his; the said letter reads as follows:"Mr. E. HadjiGeorghiou, 40 Supervisor of Accounts, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 43 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) I refer to our meeting held at my office on 29th September, 1970. Wefully discussed the background and the reasons which made necessary the issue of the letters set out below. I can, without hesitation, repeat that I have no reason to doubt your zeal,devotion toduty and honesty and in thelight of allthe explanations given on either side I am prepared to consider my following letters as cancelled and withdrawn;T.P. 2453 of 8.1.70 T.P. 2453 of 16.2.70 T.P. 2453 of 28.3.70 T.P. 2453 of 3.7.70 T.P. 2453 of 18.7.70 I can alsoconfirm whatI told you orally thatyour chances and avenues of promotion will not be jeopardized by the matters contained in the correspondencereferred toabove. 2. I hope that you will continue to work with the same zeal and interest that you have so far shown and I am atyour disposalfor anyassistance thatyou may wish to receive towards the efficient discharge of your duties. (Sgd)St.Nathanael Accountant-General". The vital issue is not, really, whether, and to what extent, due to the friction that did, undoubtedly, develop between them, therelationsbetween the applicant andMr. Nathanael were strained, but whether the respondent Commission knew about such friction to a sufficient ex- 30 tent, so as to weigh accordingly, with this factor in mind, the recommendations made to it by Mr. Nathanael, and, also, to be in position to decide whether any further inquiryinthisrespectwasnecessary. The personal file of the applicant (P.2882) wasbefore 35 the Commission at the timewhen it reached itssub judice decision; in such file therewas a letter which was written 44 25 to the Chairman of the Commission, on May 1, 1973,by advocate Mr. T. Papadopoulos and to such letter there wereattached a copyof aletter whichhad been addressed byMr. Papadopoulos on July 22, 1970,to theMinisterof Finance—(under whom comes the Accountant-General) —as well as a copy of the aforequoted letter of Mr. Nathanael,datedSeptember29,1970. Anybody reading these documents could have been left in no doubt that an allegation was being put forward that Mr. Nathanael was ill-disposed towards the applicant; and, as a matter of fact, on May 29, 1973,the following note was made on the said letter of Mr. Papadopoulos: "To be brought to the notice of the Commission on the day of selection"; and, then, there appears on such letter thefollowing note: "Brought to thenoticeof theCommission at themeeting of July 10, 1973". That wasthemeeting at which the Commission decided to promote the interested party. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it has been established,beyond reasonabledoubt, that theCommissionwas not acting under any misconception regarding, or inignoranceof, theactual stateof thepersonalrelations between the applicant and his Head of Department, Mr. Nathanael. 25 It was up to the Commission to decide, once it knew about thenature of such relations,whether anyfurther inquiry into this aspect was necessary; and, apparently, it didnot decidethat such inquiry wasneeded.I cannot substitute, in this respect, my own discretion in the placeof 30 that of the Commission; and I am of the opinion that it was reasonably open to the Commission not to institute an inquiry in this connection since it knew already, from the material before it, what was the relevant situation. 35 40 As it isto bederived from itsminutes, the Commission reached itssubjudicedecision on thebasis of allthe facts appertaining to eachoneof the officers servinginthepost of Supervisor of Accounts, and after givingproper weight to the merits, qualifications, seniority, service and experienceof these officers, as they were shown in their personal files and in the annual confidential reports about them. Its minutes make it clear that it was only after it 45 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) had considered the aforesaid factors that the Commission agreed to accept therecommendation of Mr. Nathanaelin favour of promoting the interested party; therefore, I cannot agree with counsel for the applicant that Mr. Nathanaeldictated totheCommission thecoursewhichit adopt- 5 ed and that the Commission did not exercise its owndiscretioninthematter. As it has already been mentioned the Commission relied, inter alia,on the annual confidential reports about the candidates concerned; it is, therefore, useful to refer 10 in this judgment, at some length, to the contents of such reports;in myopinion their contents showthat it was,indeed, reasonably open to the respondent Commission to prefer theinterestedparty: As regards the interested party the most recent report, 15 at the material time, was dated January 15, 1973, and was signed only by Mr. Nathanael as the Reporting Officer; the interested parry was rated as "excellent" in every respect, and it was, also, stated that: "He is an all round good officer; he has never caused any problems to the 20 office; he takes responsibility and has managed to uphold the prestige of the office whenever he has been required torepresent the Treasury". The immediately previous reports were dated January 29, 1972, February 6, 1971, February 5, 1970, January 25 21, 1969, and July 26, 1968; they can all be described as favourable; those of 1972, 1971, 1970 and 1969 are signed onlyby Mr. Nathanael, either as Reporting Officer or as Countersigning Officer, or as both. That of 1968 is signed by Mr. Nathanael as Reporting Officer, and by 30 the then Accountant-General, Mr. A. Ioannides asCountersigning Officer, who described the interested party as "an excellent officer". Two earlier reports, dated November 6, 1967, and March 9, 1967, are signed by Mr. E. Yiannakis as Reporting Officer and by the said Mr. loan- 35 nides as Countersigning Officer; they are very favourable reports;in particular, in that of March 1967Mr. Yiannakis stated about the interested party: "He has the sense of absolute co-operation and responsibility and is willing to undertake higher duties and responsibilities. He is fit in 40 all respects for promotion"; and Mr. Ioannides stated: "Heisanexcellentofficer inallrespects". 46 Anearlier report, dated May 31,1965,issigned byMr. Yiannakis as Reporting Officer and by Mr. C. Stephani, the then Accountant-General, as Countersigning Officer, who stated the following about the interested party: "He 5 is a very reliable officer and one of the best now in his grade. He has shown initiative and ability to carry on without supervision, and readiness to undertake responsibility. He isfit and ready for promotion and I stronglyrecommend him for the next vacancy in the post of Super10 visor of Accounts". At the time the interested party was anAccountingOfficer, 1stGrade. The more report, at the material time, about the applicant was the one dated February 9, 1973;it is signed by Mr. P. Stavrou as Reporting Officer, who rated the appli15 cant as being "very good" and it is countersigned by Mr. Nathanael who stated: "The officer has abandoned his rather negative attitude and shows more interest in his job". The earlier reports, from 1965 onwards, are datedNo20 vember 28, 1965,February 28, 1967,November 6, 1967, December 10, 1968,March 3, 1969, April 4, 1970,February 9,1971,andFebruary29,1972. The report dated November 28, 1965,is signed byMr. Nathanael as Reporting Officer, and by Mr. C. Stephani, 25 the then Accountant-General, as Countersigning Officer; Mr. Stephani stated: "This officer has just been promoted to the post of Supervisor of Accounts. Hewill have tobe tested on more responsible duties.Hehasbeen doingvery well as officer in charge of the A/cs of the Social Insu30 ranee Fund and the Ministry of Labour". Then there follows a report dated February 28, 1967, which is signed by Mr. C. Kotsonis as Reporting Officer and by Mr. A.Ioannides as Countersigning Officer, in his capacity as Accountant-General; Mr. Ioannides stated 35 that he did not consider the applicant as an "officer of above averageintelligence". The next report isdated November 6, 1967;itissigned only by Mr. Ioannides, as both Reporting and Countersigning Officer, and the applicant isdescribed as"a good, 40 hardworking officer but of no exceptional qualities". 47 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) Then, therefollow tworeports dated October 12, 1968, and March 3, 1969, respectively, in which the Reporting Officer is Mr. Th. Theofilou and the Countersigning Officer is Mr. Nathanael. They are rather favourable, but not as favourable as those for the interested party during the same period. In the 1969 report the applicant's general intelligence was described as "above average" by Mr. Theofilou, but Mr. Nathanael, as Countersigning Officer, stated that he considered "the assessment of intelligence to begenerous". The next report is that which is dated April 28, 1970; it is signed byMr. Theofilou, as Reporting Officer, and it is countersigned by Mr. Nathanael who stated the following about the applicant: "During his service at the Motor Car Registry heexhibited nervousness and anxietyinwhat he came to think as being a situation near to chaos. He failed to work with a cool head and did not co-operate with his immediately superior officer. It became inevitable that hebetransferred therefrom". The next report is that of February 9, 1971,where the applicant was assessed by Mr. P. Stavrou as Reporting Officer; Mr. Nathanael wrote the following as Countersigning Officer: "He has been transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as officer in charge of the Accounts Branch. He appears to have lost initiative and interest in his work because of his mentality by which he getsdisappointed if his ideas are not adopted". Thenext reportisdated February 29, 1972;itis,again, signed by Mr. Stavrou as Reporting Officer and by Mr. Nathanael as Countersigning Officer, who wrote the following: "I have evidence, corroborated by senior officers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that this officer does not show interest, initiative and sense of responsibility that an officer inhisgrade should possess.Herather takes anindifferent outlook towardshisduties". As already mentioned however, in a later report dated February 9, 1973, which was countersigned by Mr. Nathanael only a few months before the meeting of the respondent Commission on July 10, 1973, at which thesub judice decision was taken, Mr. Nathanael described the applicant as having abandoned hisrather negative attitude 48 25 35 and as showing more interest in hisjob; and I wouldventure to say that this comment of Mr. Nathanael is not quite consistent with the allegation of the applicant that Mr.Nathanaelwasbiased againsthim. At the said meeting of the Commission Mr. Nathanael said that the applicant "isof a difficult character and.only lately started showing more interest in his work"; in my opinion this view was consistent with the contents of the above referred to annual Confidential reports concerning the applicant. In thisrespect I cannot accept ascorrect thesubmission -of counsel for the applicant that it was not open to Mr. Nathanael to tell the Commission that the applicant was "of a difficult character" because by doing so he was introducing acriterion not envisaged by theprescribed form for the making of the annual confidential reports. In my opinion, when a Head of Department describes a subordinate of his to the Commission, in circumstances such as those in which Mr. Nathanael spoke about the applicant at the Commission's meeting of July 10, 1973, he is not to be prevented from presenting a full and proper picture to the Commission by the wording of the form prescribed for the making of the annual confidential reports; and, in any event, the observation of Mr. Nathanael that the applicant was "of a difficult character" was obviously related to the criteria of "adaptability" and of "ability to co-operate with colleagues", if not, also, of "courtesy in dealing with the public", all of which are expressly mentioned inthesaid form. Another complaint of counsel for the applicant has been that the seniority of the applicant waswrongly overlooked, especially as it was a case of filling a promotion post and experience was a material consideration. I cannot agree that this complaint is well-founded; seniority was expressly mentioned in the relevant minutes of the Commission as a factor that had been taken into account and it was open to the Commission not to treat it as the decisive one and to prefer the interested party in thelight of other, at least equally weighty, considerations. Moreover, I do not agree with the applicant's contention that thesubjudicedecision of the Commission isnot 49 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) 1977 Febr. 16 EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) duly reasoned. Themerefact that, to a certain extent, the Commission adopted thereasons given byMr. Nathanael, as Head of the Department concerned, cannot be treated as a ground for saying that its decision wasnot duly reasoned;on thecontrary,I amof theopinion thatbysetting out in extenso in its minutes the views of Mr. Nathanael the Commission did strive to give an as adequate aspossible account of thereasons which led it to the conclusion topromote theinterested party. Norisit correct tosay, ascounselfor theapplicant has alleged, that the Commission did not have before it the proper material so as to be able to assess correctly the qualifications and experience of the candidates. It is correct—as has been conceded bycounselfor therespondent —that in the relevant comparative table,which is appended to the Opposition, it is wrongly stated, in respect of both candidates, that they have passed an examination in Statute Laws; it wasnot, however, this comparative table that was before the Commission at the material time,but the personal files of the candidates, from which all their qualifications and previous service could be ascertained, as well as the annual confidential reports files in which thereweretobefound data-sheetswherethe qualifications and past service of the applicant and of the interested party wererecorded. It has been, also, submitted on behalf of the applicant that the interested party was "hardly eligible for promotion" under therelevant schemeof service;in thisconnection it has been contended that the secondary education school which he has attended was a four-year, and not a six-year, secondary education school and a certificate to that effect was produced. The relevant scheme of service requires a "good general education of a standard not below that of a leaving certificate of a secondary school"; and when this initial scholastic qualification is examined in the context of all other qualifications entailing professional knowledge and experience, which are prescribed in the scheme of service, and which the interested party did possess, I think the fact that he graduated from a fouryear secondary education school cannot be,really, treated as a matter of any material significance; especially as it has not been suggested that the interested party did not qualify at all for promotion, under the schemeof service, 50 because he graduated from such a secondary education school. 1977' Febr. 16 A last point with which I should deal is the applicant's complaint that a letter of the Minister of Labour andSocial Insurance, dated March 24, 1967, which was addressed to the Accountant-General andin which the applicant was praised very highly for his work at the Ministry of Labour, had not been placed in his personal file and, so, presumably, it was not before the Commission when it reached its sub judicedecision. I do not think that this is a factor which could have materially influenced, towards a different outcome, the decision of the Commission as regards the most suitable candidate for the post in question;thesaidletter related to aperiod morethan sixyears prior tothesaiddecisionof theCommission andtheCommission had before it, in respect of theperiod in question, the relevant annual confidential reports on the basis of which it could make an assessment of the merits of the applicant; and, actually, therewasbefore the Commission a confidential report, dated November 28, 1965,inwhich it was stated that the applicant had been doing very well when posted at the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance.Sothefact that theaforementioned letter of theMinister of Labour and Social Insurance was not placed in thepersonalfile of the applicant did not deprive theCommission of material knowledge about any aspect of the matter before it. EVANGELOS HADJI GEORGHIOU v. REPUBUC (PUBUC SERVICE COMMISSION) For alltheforegoing reasons thisrecoursefails and has to be dismissed; but, taking into account that, quite possibly, the applicant has made this recourse due to a sense of grievance becausehefelt, even though mistakenly, that his attitude to his work was not sufficiently appreciated byhis Head of Department, the Accountant-General, I do not think that I should burden him with an order for the paymentof thecostsof therespondent. Application dismissed. 51