clr/1981/1981_3_85.pdf

(1981)and very good knowledge of English" the respondent Public Service Commission stated in its minutes that he "had graduated from a six-year secondary school in which both the Greek and English languages were taught"; that, furthermore, he "had studied in Athens for a number of years and obtained a Certifi- 5 cate in Journalism and Public Relations, a Diploma in Law, a Diploma in Public Administration and a Diploma in Public Law and Political Sciences. In view of the above, the Commission was satisfied that the cantidate in question did possess 'an excellent knowledge of Greek and a very good knowledge 10 of English' ". The applicant graduated the High School of Paphos and the Maraslios Paedagogic Academy, Athens. He was appointed as a teacher in the Ministry of Education in 1965 and became anAdministrative Officer, 3rd Grade, permanent, General Admi- 15 nistrative Staff, on the 15th November, 1973. In the meantime he obtained a B.A. degree of the Southwest Texas State University, an M.A. degree of the same University,a Post-graduate Diploma in Development Administration of the Institute of Social Studies, the Hague, and completed one semester of 20 graduate work towards thedegree of Ph. D.in Political Sciences, University of Washington. He passed the General Orders, Financial Instructions and Store Regulations and Statute Laws examinations. Counsel for the applicant mainly contended that from the 25 qualifications required under the scheme of service the interested party did not possess that regarding the "very good knowledge of English" as this is evident from his educational background and that he also lacked "satisfactory administrative experience" not having served earlier in the service or elsewhere. 30 Held, that had this Court to compare only the knowledge of English between the two candidates unquestionably it would have had no doubt in concluding that the applicant was the onewhowasbetterconversant withthat languagebut thescheme of service demands "excellent knowledge of Greek" and only 35 "very good knowledge of English"; that on the material before this Court and bearing inmind what isbeingsaid bythe respondent Commission in its minutes to the effect that the interested party possessed "an excellent knowledge of Greek and a very good knowledge of English", the contention of counsel for the 40 86 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Miliatos v. Republic applicant to the contrary cannot be accepted; that, moreover, the respondent Commission examined the candidates at the interview on matters connected with the duties of the post as shown in the relevant scheme of service, in addition to matters of general knowledge and bearing this in mind together with the rest of the material before it, came to the conclusion that the interested party was on the whole the best; and that it can, therefore, be inferred that the possession of satisfactory administrative experience was also examined when they speak, as they speak, of qualifications, abilities and experience of the candidates, as well as their suitability for appointment to the above post as shown at the interview (see also Antoniou v. Republic

(1975)3 C.L.R. 510 at p. 516 where the presumption of regularity was allowed to operate in favour of the Commission's decision to the effect that the interested party had the knowledge of English required by the relevant scheme of service).

(2)That on the totality of the material before it, this Court hasnotbeenpersuadedthat inreachingthesubjudicedecisionthe 20 respondent Commission was wrong in any way in the exercise of its discretion or that it acted in abuse of power or that it failed to weigh the relevant merits of the parties; accordingly the recourse must fail. Application dismissed. 25 Cases referred to: Antoniou v. TheRepublic

(1975)3 C.L.R. 510 at p. 516; Zinieris (No. 1)v. The Republic

(1975)3 C.L.R. 13 at p. 19. Recourse* Recourse against the decision of the respondent to appoint 30 the interested party to thepostof Secretary"A" in the Presidency _ jn_ preference and instead of the applicant. E. Efstathiou with A. Hadjipanayiotou, for-the applicant. G. Constantinou (Miss), for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 35 A. Loizou J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant seeks a declaration of the Court that thedecision oftherespondent Commission bywhichit appointed on probation to the post of Secretary "A" in the Presidency, Erotocritos A. Chlorakiotis (hereinafter to be referred to as 87 A. Loizou J. Miliatos v. Republic

(1981)the interested party) instead of himself, is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. According to the relevant scheme of service (enclosure 2), thispostisafirst entryandpromotionpostandthe qualifications requiredtherebyinclude,amongothers,"anexcellentknowledge 5 of Greek and very good knowledge of English" and "ability to draft in both aforesaid languages with clarity and speed, memoranda, submissions, letters, etc. and also to possess satisfactory administrative experience". The vacancy in the said post was advertised in the official Gazette and in response 10 thereto 18 applications were submitted. The respondent Commission then invited eight candidates for interview which took place on the 24th May, 1979, and in the presence of the Under-Secretary to the President. Among those invited were the applicant and the interested party. 15 Intheminute of therespondent Commission keptwith regard totheseinterviews(enclosure5)itisstatedthat"theCommission as well as the Under-Secretary to the President, put several questions to all thecandidates on matters ofgeneral knowledge and on matters connected with the duties of thepost as shown 20 in the relevant scheme of service". At its meeting of the 28th May, 1979, the respondent Commission considered thefillingof the vacancy in question and its minutes (enclosure 6) in so far as relevant read as follows: "The Commission considered the merits, qualifications 25 and experience of the above candidate, together with those of the candidates interviewed on 24.5.79, as well as their performance during the interview (Personality, alertness ofmind, general intelligence and the correctness of answers to questions put to them, etc.). 30 The Personal Files and the Annual Confidential Reports of the candidates already in the service were also taken into consideration. The Commision then discussed the abilities and suitability of all the candidates for appointment to the post of 35 Secretary 'A\ The Under-Secretary tothe President stated that, having regard to the special duties of the post which would have 88 3 C.L.R. Miliatos -v.'Republic Λ. Loizou J. to be performed in the President's Office, he would prefer Mr. Erotokritos Andreou Chlorakiotis for appointment to the above post. 5 10 15 20 25 According to the relevant scheme of service, candidates for appointment or promotion to the post of Secretary Ά \ in the Presidency,.must possess 'an excellent knowledge of Greek and a very good knowledge of English'. The Commission observed that Mr. E. A. Chlorakiotis had graduated from a Six-year Secondary School in which both the Greek and English languages were taught; further­ more, Mr. Chlorakiotis had studied in Athens for a number of years and obtained a Certificate in Journalism and Public Relations, a Diploma in Law, a Diploma in Public Administration and a Diploma in Public Law and Political Science. In view of the above, the Commission was satis­ fied that the candidate in question did possess 'an excellent knowledge of Greek and a very good knowledge of English'. After considering all the above and after taking into consideration all the facts appertaining to each one of the 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 Commission came to the conclusion that Mr. Erotokritos Andreou Chlorakiotis was on the whole the best. The Commission accordingly decided that Mr. Erotokritos Andreou Chlorakiotis be appointed, on probation, to thepermanentpost of Secretary Ά', in the Presidency, w.e.f. 15.6.79". 30 It is the case for the applicant that from the qualifications required under the scheme of service the interested party did not possessjhat regarding the "very good knowledge of English" as this is evident, as alleged, from his educational background and that he also lacked "satisfactory administrative experience", 35 not having served earlier in the service or elsewhere. The applicant graduated the High School of Paphos and then the Maraslios Paedagogic Academy, Athens. Hewas appointed as a teacher in the Ministry of Education in 1965 and became an Administrative Officer, 3rd Grade, permanent, General 40 Administrative Staff, on the 15th November, 1973. In the 89 Λ. Loizou J. Mififltas v. Republic

(1981)meantime he obtained a B.A. degree of the Southwest Texas State University, an M.A. degree of the same University, a Post-graduate Diploma in Development Administration of the Institute of Social Studies, the Hague, and completed one semester of graduate work towards the degree of Ph.D. in 5 Political Sciences, University of Washington. He passed the Genera] Orders examinations, Financial Instructionsand Stores Regulations and Statute Laws. The interested party is a graduate of the GreekGymnasium Paphos, the School of Journalism and Public Relations,Athens, 10 he has a Diploma in Law of Athens University, Diploma in Public Law and Political Sciences,of Athens University, Diplo­ ma in Public Administration from the Pantios Highest School of Athens and he was registered as an advocate in Cyprus in 1977. 15 If I had to compare only the knowledge of English between the two candidates unquestionably I would have had no doubt inconcluding that the applicant is theonewho is better conver­ sant with that language but the scheme of service demands "excellent knowledge of Greek" and only "very good knowledge 20 of English" and on the material before meand bearing inmind what is being said by the respondent Commission in itsminutes hereinabove set out to the effect that the interested party possessed "an excellent knowledge of Greek and a very good knowledge of English", Ifindmyselfunabletoaccepttheconten- 25 tionof learnedcounsel for theapplicanttothecontrary. More­ over, the respondent Commission examined the candidates at the interview on matters connected with the duties of the post as shown in the relevant scheme of service in addition to matters of general knowledge and bearing this in mind 30 together with the rest of the material before it, came to the conclusion that theinterested party was on the whole the best. It can, theiefore, be inferred that the possession of satisfactory administrative experience was also examined when they speak, as they speak, of qualifications, abilities and experience of the 35 candidates, as well as their suitability for appointment to the above post as shown at the interview. On the totality of the material before me I must say that I have notbeen persuaded that in reaching thesubjudice decision therespondentCommissionwas wrong inanyway intheexercise 40 90 3 C.L.R. Miliatos v. Republic Λ. Loizou J. of its discretion or that it acted in abuse of power or that it failed to weigh the relevant merits of the parties. As stated in the case of GeorghiosAntoniou v. The Republic

(1975)3 C.L.R. 510, at p. 516, by reference to the Zinieris 5 (No. 1) v. The Republic case, reported in the same part, p. 13, at p. 19: " we must assume that the Commission had duly in mind the required standard of knowledge of English and felt reasonably satisfied that the interested party concerned possessed such knowledge; because, as there is nothing before 10 us to indicate that the Commission was not of this view, we must allow the presumption of regularity to operate in favour of the Commission's decision in the matter". 15 For all the above reasons this recourse is dismissed but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs. Application dismissed. No order as to costs. 91