clr/1980/1980_3_165.pdf

(1980)Public Officers—Appointments and promotions—Selection of the most suitable candidate—Open to the members of the respondent Commission to make use of their own personal knowledge or information about the candidates—But reasoninggiven inrelevant decision, for adopting such a course, must be such as to enable 5 proper judicial control. Public Officers—Appointments andpromotions—Confidential reports— Rule that Ministers shouldnot make confidentialreports orrecommendations but such reports or recommendations should be made by the superiors, in the public service, of the candidates—To be 10 readand applied in conjunctionwith theprovisions of section 45

(3)of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67) and the definition of "competent authority" in section 2 of the same Law—Making of confidential report by Minister apparently because superior officer normally competent for its making a brother of the 15 candidate—//; the circumstances of this case such a course not a material irregularity which could have infiuenced in any substantive way the outcome of the relevant administrative action —And not a groundfor annullingsuch action. Administrative Law—Administrative formalities—Irregularity—Only a material irregularity can lead to the annulment of the relevant administrative process. Public Officers—Appointments and promotions—Secretary Council of Ministers—High office—Appointing Authority vested with wide discretion. Public Officers—Appointments and promotions—Secretary Council of Ministers—Applicant senior to interested party, with more qualifications and better confidential reports—Though he might. in the abstract, have appeared to be a better public officer than theinterested party, he has notsatisfied the Court that the respond- 30 ent Commission has, in the context of the very special circumstances of this case, exceeded the extreme outer limits of its relevant discretion in selecting the interested party for the said post which is of a unique nature—Moreover appointing organ has a very wide discretion when making a selectionfor a post so high 35 in the Public Service. The applicant, a Senior Administrative Officer, was a candidate for promotion to the post of Secretary Council of Ministers, a first entry and promotion post. Following the interview of the 166 20 25 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Ierides v. Republic candidates the respondent Commission, after taking into consideration all the facts appertaining to each one of the candidates and after giving proper weight to their merits, qualifications, abilities and experience as well as to their suitability for appointment to the above post as shown at the interview, decided* by majority of 3 votes to 1 that C. Cleanthous ("the interested party") was on the whole the best and it promoted him to the above post. The qualifications, career and a picture of the confidential reports of the applicant and the interested parly appear in the judgment at pp. 176-177 post. The appellant challenged the above decision by means of a recourse which was dismissed and hence this appeal. Counsel for the appellant mainly contended: 15 20 25 30 35 (a) That though the respondent Commission has referred in its mimutcs to the factor of "experience" it omitted to refer to the factor of "seniority" and because of such omission it should be concluded that no due weight was given to this factor though it is one of the three cardinal factors which, together with merits and qualifications, has to be taken into account. (b) That, though the scheme of service for the post in question required, as a qualification, a University degree in a suitable subject, such as Law, Political Sciences, Economics etc., or an equivalent academic qualification, nevertheless the appellant who possessed such a degree was not selected for appointment and the interested party, who did not possess such an academic qualification, was appointed instead of him, on the basis of the "Note" appearing at the end of the text of the said scheme of service, in which it was stated that on filling for the first time the said,post after the approval of the scheme of service there will not be required a University degree, provided that the candidates will have very good education of a standard not below that of a graduate of a school of secondary education, at least fifteen years' satisfactory service Seethereasonswhichled to theabovedecision intheminutesoftheCommission at p. 172—174 post. 167 Ierldes τ. Republic

(1980)in the Public Service, including administrative experi­ ence, and thorough knowledge of the Government machinery. (

1. c)That undue and improper weight was given, at least by one member of the Commission, its Chairman, to 5 the personal knowledge or information from others which the Chairman of the Commission had about the candidates, including the appellant and the inter­ ested party. (
2. d)That the appointmentof the interested party was made 10 in a defective manner in that a special confidential report about him, in respect of the period January 1, 1972, to August 20, 1972, was made by the then Minister of Interior* instead of by his immediate superior, namely the District Officer of Nicosia. 15 (
3. e)That the appointment of the interested party, instead of the appellant, to the post concerned ought to have been annulled because the appellant was senior to the interested party, better qualified than him and had better confidential reports. Held,

(1)that though there is noexpress reference to seniority in the relevant minutes of the Commission, it is stated therein that "all facts appertaining to each one of the candidates" were taken into consideration and, also, that "the Personal Files and the Annual Confidential Reports of the candidates 25 already in the service were also taken intoconsideration;" that there can be no doubt, especially in view of the presumption of regularity which is applicable in relation to administrative actions that the seniority of all the candidates, including, of course, the appellant and the interested party, as appearing in 30 their persona! files, was taken into consideration in reaching thesubjudicedecision;that,moreover,thenotionof "experience" Apparently, the reason for which the then Minister of Interior made the aforementioned special confidential report about the interested party, instead of such report being made by a public officer superior in the service to the interested party, is the fact that the immediately previous ordinary confidential report, for 1971, had been made by the Director-Generalof the Ministry of Interior, who was the immediate superior of the interested party, while he was acting as District Officer of Kyrenia; and the said DirectorGeneral happened to be the brother of the interested party and this fact was cbarly stated in the said confidential report. 168 20 3 C.L.R. lerides v. Republic must, reasonably, be taken to include that of "seniority"; and that, accordingly, contention(a)must fail. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

(2)That itwasopentothe respondent Commission toact on the strength of the said "Note" andto select a person, such as theinterested party, whowasqualified forappointmentby virtue of it, though hedidnotpossess a University degree, oncethe Commission considered that this candidate was more suitable for the post of Secretary tothe Council of Ministers; thatthere is nothing inthetext of the relevant scheme of service tolend support to the argument of counsel for theappellant thatthe exception, as he described it, created by the provision made by the aforesaid "Note" could only have been resorted to if there was not available an otherwise suitable candidate who possessedaUniversity degree;that,onthecontrary,itisexpressly stated inthe scheme ofservice concerned that,inrelation to the firstfilling of the post in question after the approval ofthe scheme of service there would not be required ("δέν θά άπαιτηΟη") a University degree provided that the candidates would possess thequalifications specified intheaforementioned Note; that,moreover, itwasreasonably opentothe respondent Commission, in deciding whom to select as the most suitable candidate for the particular post in question, and not only as being the better candidate intheabstract, to attribute more significance to onefactor than to another in the course of a properexercise ofitsrelevant discretionary powers (see Georghiou v. TheRepublic

(1976)3 C.L.R. 74at p.82);andthat, accord­ ingly, contention (b) must fail.

(3)That, in theprocess of selection by a collective organ of a person whois the most suitable for appointment to a post inthepublic service, itis opento themembers ofsuch collective organ to make use of their ownpersonal knowledge or infor­ mation about thecandidates is a principle which is well settled in administrative law;that,of course, it must beborne inmind that whensuchacourseisresorted tobyanappointingauthority, such as therespondent Commission, thereasoning given inits relevant decision must be such as to enable proper judicial control in thisconnection;thatwhat isnecessary toberecorded, on each particular occasion, depends very much onthe circum­ stances of each individual case; that, in the present instance, theChairman of the Commission explains hisviews aboutthe candidates in a manner sufficient for theexercise appropriately 169 Ierides v. Republic

(1980)of judicial control; and that, accordingly, contention (c) must fail.

(4)(a) That though the District Administration comes under the Minister of Interiorit is well settled that it is not the right course for Ministers to make confidential reports or recommen- 5 dations, instead of such reports or recommendations being duly made by the superiors in the public service of the candidates; and that this proposition has now to be read and applied in conjunction with the express provisions of section 45

(3)of Law 33/67 and the definition of "competent authority" ("αρμοδία 10 αρχή" ) in section 2 of the same Law. (

1. b)That at the time when the subjudice decision was taken there had, already, been made, after the special confidential report which was made, as aforesaid, by the then Minister of Interior, a later confidential report, for the period August 1, 15 1972, to February 28, 1973, by the District Officer of Nicosia, underwhom theinterested party was servingas Assistant District Officer; that reading together the special confidential report madeby theDistrict Officer of Nicosia,which isthemostrecent, and the earlier special confidential report made by the then 20 Minister of Interior,it cannot be said, in the least, that there is anything containedinthereportmadeby the Ministerof Interior which is not fully borne out by the report made subsequently by the District Officer of Nicosia;that,so,thefact that a special confidential report was made about the interested party by the 25 at the time Minister of Interior does not constitute a material irregularity which could have influenced in any substantial way the outcomeof therelevant administrative action;that,therefore, it cannot be treated as a ground for annulling such action because, as regards administrative formalities, it is not any 30 irregularity which may lead to the annulment of the relevant administrative process, butonly amaterial one;andthat,accord­ ingly,contention(
2. d)must fail.

(5)Thatthis Courthas notbeensatisfied by theappellantthat, even though he might, in the abstract, have appeared to be a 35 better public officer than the interested party, the respondent Commission has,inthe context of thevery special circumstances of this case, exceeded the extreme outer limits of its relevanl discretion in selecting the interested party as more suitable than the appellant for the of a unique nature post concerned; that, 40 170 3 C.L.R. moreover, it must not belost sight of, inthis connection,thai, when selection is made for a post so very high upinthe public service, such as in the present case, theappointing organhas a very wide discretion indeed (seeFrangos v. Republic.

(1970)3C.L.R.312 atp.343 and the decisions of the CouncilofState in Greecein cases 1542/1967 and 1543/1967); andthat,acco­ rdingly, theappeal must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 5 10 15 Ierides τ. Republic Cases referred to: Republic v. Ekkeshis

(1975)3 C.L.R. 548at p. 556; Georghiou v. TheRepublic

(1976)3 C.L.R. 74at p. 82; Frangos v. TheRepublic

(1970)3 C.L.R. 312at pp. 333-338; Frangoulides (No.2)v. The Republic

(1966)3C.L.R. 676; HjiSavva andAnother v. The Republic

(1967)3C.L.R.155; Frangides andAnother v. TheRepublic

(1968)3C.L.R.90; Ellinas v. The Republic

(1975)3C.L.R.248; Decisions of theGreek Council of State in Case Nos. 1341/1963, 923/1955, 459/1956, 460/1956, 538/1966, 1542/67 and 1543/67. 20 25 Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment ofa Judge of the SupremeCourt of Cyprus(A. Loizou,J.)given onthe28thJanuary, 1976 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 103/74)whereby appellant's recourse against the decision of the respondent to appoint the interested party, Costas Cleanthous, tothepost of Secretary to theCouncil of Ministers was dismissed. A. S. Angelides, for the appellant. N. Charalambous, Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv.vult. 30 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read thefollowingjudgment oftheCourt. 35 The appellant hasappealed against thefirstinstance judgment* ofa Judge ofthis Courtwho dismissed arecourse of the appellant against thedecision of therespondent Public Service Commission to appoint to the post of Secretary to the Council of Ministers Costas Cleanthous,the "interested party" inthis case. • Reported in

(1976)3 C.L.R. 9. 171 TriantafyHides P. Ierides v. Republic

(1980)The said decision was reached on December II, 1973,and the relevant part of the minutes of the respondent Commission reads as follows:"The Commission considered the filling of the vacancy in the permanent post of Secretary, Council of Ministers. 5 The Commission considered the merits, qualifications and experience of the candidates interviewed on 2.11.73 and 5.11.73 as well as their performance during the interview (personality, alertness of mind, general intelligence and the correctness of answers to questions put to them, 10 etc.). The Personal Files and the Annual Confidential Reports of the candidates already in the service were also taken into consideration. The Commission observed that four of the candidates interviewed (namely Messrs. C.N. Nicolaides, E. Consta- 15 ntinides, K.G. Spatharis and N.E. Metaxas) were serving in the Government and were holding posts with higher salary scales than the remaining candidates. However, none of them appeared to the Commission during the interview to stand out as a strong candidate for appointment to 20 the post of Secretary, Council of Ministers. Furthermore, the Commission observed that one of these candidates (namely Mr. N.E. Metaxas) was holding the post of Senior Land Officer and specialised in land matters; in addition, Mr. E. Constantinides was holding the post of Senior 25 Industrial Relations Officer, in the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, and received special training in Labour Administration and Industrial Relations. After considering the above and after taking into consideration all the facts appertaining to each one of the 30 candidates and after giving proper weight to the merits, qualifications, abilities and experience of these candidates, as well as to their suitability for appointment to the above post as shown at the interview, the Chairman and the Members of the Commission came to the following conclu- 35 sion: Chairman: He considered Mr. C. Cleanthous as the most suitable Officer for the above post. In arriving at this conclusion, the Chairman took into consideration the fact that, according to the note appended at the end of the 40 172 3 CX.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Ieridesv.Republic TriantafyMdes P. relevant scheme of service, the possession of a University Diploma or Degree is not a requirement for the first filling of the above vacancy, after the approval of the scheme of service by the Council of Ministers. It is a fact that a number of other candidates have satisfactory service in the Public Service, including administrative experience and thorough knowledge of Government machinery, but they should be reliable, trustworthy, they must have integrity, they must possess a high degree of common sense and judgment and also be able to assume responsibility and supervise staff. The Chairman took also into consideration the fact that the vacant post to befilledwas only one. Most of the candidates were more or less known to the Chairman (their character, abilities and suitability) either from personal contact as members of his office, or from oral information obtained from their Heads of Department when filling various vacancies or from previous interviews in connection with the filling of other vacancies, or from • general personal knowledge. In addition to the above, the Chairman took into consideration the long and satisfactory service of Mr. Cleanthous in the Government, particularly his service as Acting District Officer Kyrenia and later as an Assistant District Officer, Nicosia. Having all the above in mind, the Chairman came to the above conclusion that Mr. C. Cleanthous was the best and most suitable officer for the post of Secretary, Council of Ministers. M. Economopoulosand Y. Louca: They held the view that thelongexperienceof Mr. C. Cleanthous in the Government service as well as his experience as an Assistant District Officer together with his experience as an Acting District Officer, render the officer in question as the most suitable officer for promotion to the post of Secretary, Council of Ministers. £>• Protestos: He considered Mr. Ch. Ierides as the most suitable officer for the post of Secretary, Council of Ministers. Bearing in mind the above, the Commission decided by majority of 3 votes to 1(Mr. D. Protestos dissenting) that Mr. C. Cleanthous was on the wholethe best and that he be 173 TrianfafylHdes P. Ierides τ. Republic

(1980)promoted to the permanent post of Secretary, Council of Ministers, w.e.f. 1.1.74". The post in question is a "first entry and promotion" post and the relevant vacancy was, accordingly, advertised in the Official Gazette of the Republic. 5 There were eighteen candidates who applied for appointment to such post, including the appellant and the interested party; they were both interviewed by the respondent Commission, together with other candidates, on November 2, 1973. The scheme of service which was in force at the material time in relation to the said post was adopted by the Council of Ministers on September 13, 1973, and it reads as follows:- 10 "Καθήκοντα καΐ Εύθΰνσι: Ό διορισθησόμενος να άναλάβη τήν διεύθυνση» τοΰ Γραφείου τοΰ 'Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου. Θά παρακάθηται, 15 συμφώνως προς οδηγίας αίτινες δυνατόν νά δοθούν είς αυτόν υττό τοΰ Υπουργικοί) Συμβουλίου, els τάς συνεδρίας αΰτοϋ, θά τηρή τα πρακτικάαυτών κσΛ Θάδιαβιβάζητάςαποφάσεις τοΰ Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου είς τό κατάλληλον όργανον, αρχήν ή πρόσωπον. Θά έκτελή οΙαδήποτε άλλα καθήκοντα 20 τά όποια δυνατόν νά όρίση ό Πρόεδρος καΐ οΙαδήποτε άλλα καθήκοντα τά όποϊα δυνατόν νά άνατεθοΰνείς αυτόν Οπό τοΰ Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου δυνάμει τοΰ Συντάγματος. 'Απαιτούμενα Προσόντα: (α) Πανεπιστημιακόν δίπλωμα ή τίτλος είς κατάλληλον 25 θέμα, ήτοι Νομικά, Πολιτικός Έπιστήμας, Οίκονομικά κτλ. ή ϊσοδύναμον προσόν καΐ επαρκής γνώσις τοΰ Κυβερνητικού μηχανισμού. (β) "Απταιστος γνώσις της Ελληνικής καΐ πολύ καλή γνώσις της 'Αγγλικής. 30 (γ) 01 υποψήφιοι δέον νά εΐυαι πρόσωπα υπεύθυνα» αξιόπιστα, ακεραίου χαρακτήρος καΐ νά έχουν άνεπτυγμένον είς ύψηλόν βαθμόν τον κοινόν νουν καΐ κρίσιν. (δ) 'Ικανότης αναλήψεως ευθύνης καΐ επιτηρήσεως προσωπικού. Σημείωσις: Δια τήν πρώτην πλήρωσιν της θέσεως μετά τήν εγκρισιν 174 35 3 C.L.R. 5 Ierides v. Republic TriantafyUides P. τοΰ παρόντος Σχεδίου Υπηρεσίας δέν θά άπαιτηθή Πανεπιστημιακόν Δίπλωμα ώς αναφέρεταιυπό τά στοιχεϊον (α) ανωτέρω, νοουμένου Οτι οί υποψήφιοι θά έχουν πολύ καλήν μόρφωσιν επιπέδου ουχί κατωτέρου εκείνου απολυτηρίου Σχολής Μέσης Εκπαιδεύσεως, δεκαπενταετή τουλάχιστον εϋδόκιμον ύπηρεσίαν είς τήν Δημοσίαν Ύπηρεσίαν, περι­ λαμβανομένης διοικητικής πείρας καΐ ενδελεχή γνώσιν τοΰ Κυβερνητικού μηχανισμού." {"Duties and Responsibilities: 10 15 The person to be appointed will have charge of the Council of Minister' Office. He will attend, in accordance with any instructions as may be given to him by theCouncil of Ministers, its meetings, keep the minutes thereof and convey the decisions of the Council of Ministers to the appropriate organ, authority or person. He will carry out any other duties which the President may direct and any other duties which may be assigned to him by the Council of Ministers under the Constitution. Qualifications Required: 20 25 (a) A University degree or diploma in an appropriate subject, that is Law, Political Sciences, Economics etc. or an equivalent qualification and sufficient knowledge of Government machinery. (b) Perfect knowledge of Greek and very good knowledge of English. (c) The candidates should be reliable persons, trust­ worthy, possessing integrity and a high degree of common sense and judgment. 30 (d) Ability to assume responsibility and supervise staff. Note: 35 On filling the post for the first time after the approval of the present Scheme of Service a University degree as stated in (a) above shall not be required, provided that the candidates have a very good education of a standard not below that of a leaving certificate of a Secondary School, fifteen years' satisfactory service in the Public Service, 175 TriantafyUides P. Ierides v. Repabllc

(1980)including administrative experience and thorough knowledge of Government machinery.") Counsel for the appellant, in arguing this appeal, has contended that the appointment of the interested party, instead of the appellant, to the post concerned ought to have been 5 annulled becausetheappellant wassenior totheinterested party, better qualified than him and had better confidential reports. It is correct that the appellant and the interested party had equal seniority in the post of Senior Administrative Officer in the General Administrative Staff, having been appointed to 10 such post on the same date, namely on July 15, 1971;but the appellant was senior by five years to the interested party in the immediately lower post of Administrative Officer, 1st Grade, in the General Administrative Staff, having been appointed to such post on April 1, 1962,whereas the interested party was so (5 appointed on October 1, 1967;and theseniority ofthe appellant in the said immediately lower post is a factor to be duly taken into account, under section 46 of the Public Service Law,1967 (Law 33/67), in view oftheequal seniority ofthetwo candidates concerned in the post of Senior Administrative Officer. 20 Asregards qualifications, both theappellant andthe interested party were graduates of secondary education schools and had passed theusual for public officers governmental examinations, such as those for General Orders, Financial Instructions and Cyprus Statute Laws; the appellant was, also, at the material 25 time, an Associate Member of the Chartered institute of Secretaries of the United Kingdom, possessed an L.L.B. (Honours) Degree of London University and had passed the Cyprus Bar Examinations. On the other hand, the interested party had passed only Part 30 I of the Bar Examinations in England, for thepurpose of becoming a Barrister-at-Law, and had attended a course in Public Administration at the University of Manchester from September 1967 to June

1. From theconfidential reports files it appears that, at the time 35 when the subjudice decision of the respondent was taken, the appellant was serving at the Ministry of Education where he had been posted in 1969, and had, previously, served at the Ministry of Health as from
2. 176 3 C.L.R. Ierides v. Republic TriantafyUides P. The most recent confidential reports concerning the appellant were, at the material time, those in respect of the years 1972, 1971,1970,1968,1966 and 1965, and they are all "special confidential reports" presenting the appellant as a public officer of 5 great merit, indeed. Ontheotherhand, theinterested party, whenhewas appointed to the post of Secretary to the Council of Ministers, was performing the duties of Assistant District Officer of Nicosia, having, previously, performed, from 1968 onwards, the duties 10 of Assistant District Officer of Kyrenia. While in Kyrenia he had acted as District Officer for one year, from July 1971 to July 1972 and he was, then, transferred to Nicosia where, being an Assistant District Officer, had acted as District Officer for short periods in 1972 and
3. 15 The most recent confidential reports concerning the interested party were, at the material time, those for the periods from August 1972 to February 1973, for 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969 and for the periods from August 1968 to December 1968 and from April 1966 to March
4. 20 It is correct that out of all the said confidential reports concerning theinterested party only thosein respect of the period from August 1972 to February 1973 and for 1972are "special confidential reports", but it must be mentioned that earlier confidential reports, though not being special confidential 25 reports, do show the interested party to be,nevertheless, a public officer of very great merit; for example, in the report for 1970 the then District Officer of Nicosia and Kyrenia, Mr. Chr. Kythreotis, states that the interested party fully merited promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Officer. 30 It may, properly, be said, in the light of all the foregoing, that, prima facie, the appellant ought to betreated as a candidate superior to the interested party; but, in view of the special circumstances in which the decision of the Commission was reached, it cannot be held that the appellant has discharged the 35 onus of satisfying us inthis appeal that hewas strikingly superior to the interested party as regards appointment to the particular post concerned, namely that of Secretary to the Council of Ministers, or that the respondent Commission acted contrary to law, or in excess or abuse of powers, in treating the interested 40 party as more suitable than the appellant for such appointment. 177 TriantafyUides P. Ierides v. Republic

(1980)As it appears from the aforequoted minutes of the respondent Commission, its members were influenced, to a very considerable extent, by the really unique nature of the post of Secretary to the Council of Ministers and were trying to select for appointment to such post the candidate who, in their view, was the most 5 suitable for appointment to it. It is stated in the minutes of the Commission that proper weight was given to the merits, qualifications, abilities and experience of the candidates "as well as to their suitability for appointment to the above post as shown at the interview"; and 10 the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Theocharides, as well as its members Mr. Economopoulos and Mr. Louca, who chose the interested party for appointment, stressed that he was the most suitable officer for the post of Secretary to the Council of Ministers. Also, the other member of the Commission, Mr. 15 Protestos, who disagreed and voted in favour of appointing to such post the appellant, stressed that, in his view, it was the appellant who was the most suitable officer for appointment to the particular post. Another factor, which, obviously, influenced the majority of 20 the members of the respondent in selecting the interested party for appointment to the post in question, was his experience in the District Administration which, in view of its nature, is of more universal and encompassing nature than the experience gained by the appellant while serving at certain Ministries or 25 Government Departments. Also, it may be pointed out, in this connection, that,as already mentioned, the interested party had successfully completed a course in Public Administration at the University of Manchester, which is described as follows ina certificate dated June 20, 1968, 30 issued by the Registrar of Manchester University:"The Course, conducted from September 1967 to June 1968, included studies in Principles of Administration, Decentralisation, Administration for Development, Comparative Government and Administration, Machinery of 35 Government, Administrative Practice and Techniques, Economics for Development, Agricultural Economics, Social Administration, Community Development, Research Method, and Use of Statistics; practical study attachments 178 3 C.L.R. 5 Ierides v. Republic TriantafyUides P. in England and Northern Ireland, in the fields of central government, local government, private and public enter­ prise; visits to study regional development in Scotland and theRepublic of Ireland; and a written project on a subject in Public Administration." It is clear from the above description of the course in question that it was a qualification eminently relevant to the special and much diversified nature of the duties of the Secretary to the Council of Ministers and, therefore, a qualification which could 10 have weigned very much in deciding that the interested party was more suitable than the appellant for appointment. It is convenient to mention,at this stage, that counsel for the appellant has complained that, though the respondent Commis­ sion has referred in its minutes to the factor of "experience", 15 it makes no reference to the factor of "seniority"; and he has argued that because of the omission to refer, expressly, to senio­ rity it should be concluded that no due weight was given to this factor though it is one of the three cardinal factors which, together with merits and qualifications, had to be taken into 20 account. 25 There is, indeed, no express reference to seniority in the relevant minutes of the Commission, but it is stated, however, therein that "all facts appertaining to each one of thecandidates" were taken into consideration and, also, that "the Personal Files and the Anmial Confidential Reports of the candidates already in the service were also taken into consideration." There can be no doubt, especially in view of the presumption of regularity which is applicable in relation to administrative actions (see, inter alia,The Republicv. Ekkeshis,

(1975)3 C.L.R. 30 548, 556), that the seniority of all the candidates, including, of course, the appellant and the interested party, as appearing in their personal files, was taken into consideration in reaching the subjudice decision (and see, also, the decision of the Council of State in Greece in case 1341/1963, which is reported in Έτπθε35 ώρησις Δημοσίου Δικαίου καΐ Διοικητικού Δικαίου—Review of Public Law and Administrative Law—1963, vol. 7, pp. 403, 404). Moreover, the notion of "experience" must, reasonably, be taken to include that of "seniority". Another complaint of counsel for the appellant is that, though 179 TriantafyUides P. Ierides v. Republic

(1980)the scheme of service for the post in question required, as a qualification, a University degree in a suitable subject, such as Law, Political Sciences, Economics etc., or an equivalent academic qualification, nevertheless the appellant who possessed such a degree was not selected for appointmentand the interested 5 party, who did not possess such an academic qualification, was appointed instead of him, on the basis of the "Note" appearing at the end of the text of the said scheme of service, in which it is stated that on filling for the first time the said post after the approval of the scheme of service there will not be required a 10 University degree, provided that the candidates will have very good education of a standard not below that of a graduate of a school of secondary education, at least fifteen years' satisfactory service in the Public Service, including administrative experience, and thorough knowledge of the Government machinery. 15 It is clear that it was open to the respondent Commission to act on the strength of the said "Note" and to select a person, such as the interested party, who was qualified for appointment by virtue of it, though he did not possess a University degree, once the Commission considered that this candidate was more 20 suitable for the post of Secretary to the Council of Ministers; and there is nothing in the text of the relevant scheme of service to lend support to the argument of counsel for the appellant that the exception, as he described it, created by the provision made by the aforesaid " N o t e " could only have been resorted to if 25 there was not available an otherwise suitable candidate who possessed a University degree; on the contrary, it is expressly stated in the scheme of service concerned that, in relation to the firstfillingof the post in question after theapproval of the scheme of service there would not be required ("δέν θά άπαιτηθή") a 30 University degree provided that the candidates would possess the qualifications specified in the aforementioned Note. Moreover, it was reasonably open to the respondent Commis­ sion, in deciding whom to select as the most suitable candidate for the particular post in question, and not only as being the 35 better candidate in the abstract, to attribute more significance to one factor than to another in the course of a proper exercise of its relevant discretionary powers (see Georghiou v. The Republic,

(1976)3 C.L.R. 74, 82). Another matter, which has been raised by counsel for the 180 40 3 C.L.R. Ierides v. Republic TriantafyUides P. appellant, is that undue and improper weight was given, at least by one member of the respondent Commission, its Chairman, as it appears from its minutes, to the personal knowledge or information from others which the Chairmanof the Commission 5 had about the candidates, including the appellant and the interested party. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 That, in the process of selection by a collective organ of a person who is the most suitable for appointment to a post in the public service, it is open to the members of such collective organ to make use of their own personal knowledge or information about the candidates is a principle which is well settled in administrative law (see, inter alia, Frangos v. The Republic,

(1970)3 C.L.R. 312, 333-338, and Στασινόπουλου Μαθήματα Διοικητικού Δικαίου—Discourses on Administrative Law by Stasinopoulos—1957, p. 347); of course, it must be borne in mind that when such a course is resorted to by an appointing authority, such as the respondent Commission, the reasoning given in its relevant decision must be such as to enable proper judicial control inthisconnection(see,for example, the decisions of the Greek Council of State in cases 923/1955, 459/1956, 460/1956 and 538/1966); but, what is necessary to be recorded, on each particular occasion, depends very much on the circum­ stances of each individual case and we are of the view that, in the present instance, the Chairman of the Commission explains his views about the candidates in a manner sufficient for the exercise appropriately of judicial control. Counsel for the appellant has invited us to hold that the appointment of the interested party was made in a defective manner in that a special confidential report about him,in respect of the period January 1, 1972, to August 20, 1972, was made by the at the time Minister of Interior instead of by his immediate superior, namely the District Officer of Nicosia. It is not in dispute that the District Administration does come under the Minister of Interior, but it is, on the other hand,well settled that it is not the right course for Ministers to make confi­ dential reports or recommendations, instead of such reports or recommendations being duly made by the superiors in the public service of the candidates (see, inter alia,Frangoulides (No. 2) v. The Republic,

(1966)3 C.L.R. 676, HjiSavva and another v. The Republic,

(1967)3 C.L.R. 155, Frangidesand 181 TriantafyUides P. Ierides v. Republic

(1980)another v. The Republic,

(1968)3 C.L.R. 90, and Ellinas v. The Republic,

(1975)3 C.L.R. 248); and, of course, the above propo­ sition has now to be read and applied in conjunction with the express provisions of section 45

(3)of Law 33/67 and the defini­ tion of "competent authority" ( "αρμοδία αρχή" ) in section 2 of the same Law. 5 Apparently, the reason for which the then Minister of Interior made the aforementioned special confidential report about the interested party, instead of such report being made by a public officer superior in the service to the interested party, is the fact 10 that the immediately previous ordinary confidential report, for 1971, had been made by the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, who was the immediate superior of the interested party, while he was acting as District Officer of Kyienia; and the said Director-General happened to be the brother of the 15 interested party and this fact was clearly stated in the said confidential report. At the time when thesubjudice decision was taken there had, already, been made, after the special confidential report which was made, as aforesaid, by the then Minister of Interior, a later 20 confidential report, for the period August I, 1972, to February 28, 1973, by the District Officer of Nicosia, under whom the interested party was serving as Assistant District Officer; and leading together the special confidential report made by the District Officer of Nicosia, which is the most recent, and the 25 earlier special confidential report made by the then Minister of Interior, it cannot be said, in the least, thai there is anything contained in the report made by the Minister of Interior which is not fully borne out by the report made subsequently by the District Officer of Nicosia. 30 So, the fact that a special confidential report was made about the interested party by the at the time Minister of Interior does not constitute a material irregularity which could have influenced in any substantial way the outcomeof therelevant administrative action and, therefore, it cannotbe treated as a ground for annul- 35 ling such action; because, as regards administrative formalities, it is not any irregularity which may lead to the annulment of the relevant administrative process, but only a material one (see, inter alia, Στασινόπουλου Δίκαιον των ΔιοικητικώνΠράΕεων— Stasinopoulos on the Law of Administrative Acts—1951, 40 pp. 229-230). 182 3 C.L.R. Ierides v. Republic TriaotafyUides P. In the light of all the foregoing, as well as of the contents of thejudgment of the learned trial Judge against which this appeal has been made, wehave not been satisfied by the appellant that, even though he might, in the abstract, have appeared to be a 5 better public officer than the interested party, the respondent Commission has, in the context of the very special circumstances of this case, exceeded the extreme outer limits of its relevant discretion in selecting the interested party as more suitable than the appellant for the of a unique nature post concerned; and it 10 must not be lost sight of, in this connection, that, as fairly conceded bycounsel for theappellant, when selection ismade for a post soveryhigh up inthepublic service,suchas in the present case, the appointing organ has a very wide discretion indeed (see, inter alia,Frangos, supra, at p. 343 and the decisions of the 15 Council of State in Greece in cases 1542/1967 and 1543/1967). in the result this appeal fails and is dismissed; as, howevei. the trial Judge has made no order as to the costs of the trial against the appellant, obviously because the recourse of the appellant could not have been treated as a frivolous one or as a 20 remedy to which he ought not to have resorted in trying io redress what he regarded as a justified grievance of his, we have decided to make no order against him concerning the costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. No order as 25 to costs. 183