(1987)1987July 23 [STYLIAN1DES,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION PANAYIOTISPETRIDES, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 302/83). GEORGHIOSSTERGIDES, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 478/83). PANAYIOTISM.TSANGARIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBUCOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 479/83). 1166 3C.L.R. PetridesandOthersv. Republic PublicOfficers—Promotions—Ment,Qualifications, Semonty —Ment isamost weighty consideration, but isneither the sole factornor it can ovemde the othercntena 5 10 15 PublicOfficers—Promotions—Head ofDepartment—Recommendations of— Cogent reasons should be given for not following them — When such recommendations are inconsistent with the picture emanating from the confidentialreports,they should be disregardedor be given limitedweight depending on theextent ofinconsistency PublicOfficers—Promotions —Qualifications—Scheme ofserviceprovidingfor «threeyears service*in the immediate lower post — Whether reasonably open tothe Commission toconclude thatcandidates,who heldsuchapost, but had been performing otherduties on secondment, satisfiedscheme of service—Questionansweredintheaffirmative PublicOfficers—Promotions—Due inquiry—Presumption ofregulanty —Onus onapplicanttoestablish excessorabuse of power Reasoning ofan administrativeact—Maybe supplemented from thematerialin thefile—Unlesscircumstancesspecificallycallforititisnotnecessaryforall factors that have been taken into consideration to be mentioned in the reasoningofadecision 20 Public Officers— Promotions — Duty of appointing organ to select the best suitablecandidate—Judicialcontrol—Pnnciplesapplicable PublicOfficers—Promotions—Sinking supenonty —Meaningof 25 Bymeansoftheaforesaid recoursestheapplicantsimpugnthepromotions oftheinterested partiestothepostofSenior Health Inspector,2ndGradeon the following grounds,viz {1} The respondents did not comply withsection 44of the Public Service Law33/67 30
(2)The respondents laboured under a miscon jtion of fact inrespectof applicant mcase302/83,asitwasnotbefore themacertificate thatapplicant attended for one yeartheSchool of Medicine ofPrague University
(3)Two of the interested parties lacked the required by the relevant «scheme of service» qualification of «three years service» in the immediate lowerpost, because, though theyheldsuch a post,they had been seconded toother duties 35
(4)Respondentsfailed tocarryoutadue inquiry
(5)Applicantspossessed qualifications additional tothose required bythe scheme of service
(6)Thesubjudicedecision isnotduty reasoned 1167 Petrldes andOthersv.Republic
(1987)
(7)Respondentsfailed intheirdutytoselectthe mostsuitablecandidates. Held,dismissingthe recourse:
(1)Promotion hastwoobjects:theserviceof the public and the elevation of the civilservant. The Commission in filling promotion posts has to take intoconsideration thatthe functions of a public office are better performed in the general interest of the public bya public officer better inmerit.Atthe same timeithastoapplythestatutoryprovision that the claims of the civil servants for promotion are based on the three criteria set out in the Law. Merit is a most weighty consideration, but it is neither the sole nor itcan override theother criteria.Itiswellsettled that the Public Service Commission has to give cogent reasons if they decide to disregardtherecommendationsoftheHead ofthe Department. 5 10 When the recommendations of the Head of the Department are inconsistent with the overall picture, presented by the confidential reports, 'they should be either disregarded orbe given limited weight, depending on the extent of the inconsistency. In thiscase the recommendations were not 1 5 inconsistent with the overall picture of the candidates as presented by the record.
(2)Acertificate to the effect that applicant in case 302/83 attended the aforesaid medical school wasinhispersonalfileand, therefore, itcannot be said that the Commission laboured under a misconcepton of fact ason the 2 0 principle of the presumption ofregulanty and the wording of the sub judice decisiontheytookintoconsideration allthe materialbefore them.
(3)The assignment of dutiesto a civilservant other than the dutiesof his post cannot be lawfully used adversely against him and exclude him from promotion. Itwould have beencontrarytoeverynotionorprincipleofgood 2 5 administration and justice, ifan officer, who isdirected by the Head of his Department to perform dutiesother than thoseofhispost, were tobe found ata disadvantageouspositionvis-a-vishiscolleaguesregarding promotion.
(4)The personal files and the files of the confidential reports of the candidates were atallrelevanttimesbefore the respondent Commission; on 3 0 the presumption ofregularityandintheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary, itshouldbe acceptedthatsufficient inquirywascarried out.
(5)Qualifications additional to those provided by the scheme of service should notweigh greatlyinthemindofthe Commission.
(6)The reasoning of an administrative act may be supplemented by the 3 5 material in the file. Unless the circumstances specifically call for it, it is not necessary forallfactors thathavebeen takenintoconsideration andweighed by the administration to be mentioned inthe reasoning ofthe decision.The subjudicedecision doesnotlackdue reasoning.
(7)The choice of the most suitable candidate for promotion rests on the 4 0 competent organ and thisCourtdoes not annul a decision of an appointing 1168 3 C.L.B. Petrldes and Othersv. Republic authonty, whichinall the circumstancesof the case,itwasreasonably open to it The sub judice decision was reasonably open to the respondent Commission Recourse dismissed Noorderastocosts e Casesreferredto Georghiouv TheRepublic
(1976)3 C L R 74, 77ieRepublic ν Zachanades
(1986)3 CLR 852, TheRepublic ν Hans
(1985)3CLR 106, 10 Sotenadouv TheRepublic{1983)3C LR 921, Koussouhdesv TheRepublic
(1967)3CLR 438, Partelltdesv TheRepublic{1969)3C L R 480, Smymiosv TheRepublic
(1983)3CLR 124, Lardis ν TheRepublic
(1967)3CLR 64, 15 HjiConstantinouν TheRepublic
(1973)3C L R 65, Petndes ν PublicService Commission
(1975)3CLR 284, MytidesandAnother ν TheRepublic
(1983)3CLR 1096, TheRepublic ν Koufettas
(1985)3CLR 1950, HjiGeorghtou ν Republic
(1975)3CLR 477, 20 Larkosν TheRepublic
(1982)3 CLR 513, Papaleontiouν KarageorghisandAnother
(1987)3 C LR 211, Sawav Kepubtfc
(1985)3C L R 694 Neophytou ν TheRepublic, 1964C L R 280, 25 Pancypnan Federation of Labour (PEO) ν Board of Cinematograph FilmsCensors
(1985)3CLR 27, Constantinidesν Republic
(1967)3CLR 7at14, Georghiades& Othersν Republic
(1967)3CLR 653, PapaZachariou ν Republic
(1972)3 C LR 486atρ 504, FJefthenouv CentralBank ofCyprus {1980)3CLR 85, 30 MikellidouRepublic{1981)3CLR 461, 1169 Petrldes and Othersv. Republic
(1987)Papageorghiou υ Republic
(1984)3 CLR 1348, Papaleontiou ν Republic
(1967)3 C LR 624, Mavromatisv Educational ServiceCommittee
(1974)3 C LR 226, HadjiCieanthousv Republic
(1983)3CLR 810, Petndes ν Republic
(1983)3 CLR 216, 5 Onctaco ν Republic
(1985)3 C LR 1327, Strata Tours Ltd ν Republic
(1985)3 CLR. 2560, Chnstou ν Republic
(1986)3 CLR 89, AlonaCo-OperativeSociety ν Republic {1986)3 CLR 222, Mouzouns ν Republic
(1972)3 C LR 43, 10 Vassihou ν Republic
(1982)3 C LR 220, Hjiloannou ν TheRepublic
(1983)3 C LR 1041, HjiSawa ν TheRepublic
(1982)3 C LR 76 Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondent to promote 15 the interested parties to thepost of Senior HealthInspector2nd Gradeinpreference andinsteadof theapplicants. A Pandehdes,for applicantinCaseNo. 302/
- K. Michaelides, for applicants in Cases Nos. 478/83 and 479/
- 20 -£.Papadopoulou (Mrs.), for respondents Ν Styhamdou (Miss), for Ε Efstathiou for interested party G. Violans. Cur.adv. vuit STYLIANIDESJ. read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicants 25 are HealthInspectorsA.Six HealthInspectorsAwere promoted asfrom 15/6/83 tothepostofSeniorHealthInspector2ndGrade. The applicants by means of these recourses challenge the validity of the decision to promote the interested parties in preference andinsteadof theapplicants. A letter of request for the filling of six vacant posts of Senior Health Inspector 2nd Grade was sent to the respondent 1170 30 3 C.L.R. Petridee and Othersv.Republic StyUanides J . Commission on 15/4/
- The respondents referred the matterto a DepartmentalBoard which was set up for the purpose. 5 TheDepartmentalBoard chaired by theDirectorof Medicaland Public HealthServicesrecommended 22 including the applicants and the promotees. The respondent Commission on 25/4/1983 heard the recommendations of the Head of the Department,the Directorof Medical and Health Services. He recommended five candidates for the first five posts; with regard to the sixth post he 10 recommendedfivecandidates including applicants inCases 478/ 83 and 479/
- He did not recommend applicant in Case No. 302/
- Hesaidthe following about thiscandidate:- 15 «Panayioris Petridesinterruptedhisservicein1970 and was re-appointed in
- He has excellent confidential reports and he is holder of a diploma in law, but taking into consideration the established criteria in their totality he is inferior to the candidates thathave been recommended. He has no post-graduate qualification.» The respondent Commission on 7/6/83 took the sub judice 20 decision, the material part of which reads as follows:«Ακολούθως η Επιτροπή ασχολήθηκε με την αξιολόγηση καισύγκρισητων υποψηφίων. 25 30 35 Η Επιτροπή εξέτασε τ α ουσιώδη στοιχεία από τ ο Φάκελο Πλήρωσης της θέσης, τους Προσωπικούς Φακέλους και τις Εμπιστευτικές Εκθέσεις των υποψηφίων και έλαβε υπόψη τ α πορίσματα της Τμηματικής Επιτροπής και τις κρίσεις και συστάσεις τ ο υ Διευθυντή Ιατρικών Υπηρεσιών και Υπηρεσιών Δημόσιας Υγείας. Η Επιτροπή παρατήρησε ότι από τους υποψηφίους που συστήθηκαν από τ ο Διευθυντή οι Παναγιώτης Ιωαννίδης, Μόδεστος Μιχαηλίδης, Αγαμέμνων Πολυδώρου, Κωστάκης Παπαδόπουλος, Ζαχαρίας Ζαχαριάδης, Γεώργιος Βιολάρης και Παναγιώτης Τσαγκάρης έχουν εξαίρετες Εμπιστευτικές Εκθέσεις τ α τρία τελευταία χρόνια καιό τ ιοιΕμπιστευτικές Εκθέσεις των υπόλοιπων υποψηφίων, π ο υ επίσης συστήθηκαν από τ ο Διευθυντή, έχουνως εξής: 1171 Stylianides J . Petrldesand Othersv. Republic
(1987)Παύλος Παυλίδης: 1980,1981 και 1982: Γενικά 'Λίαν Καλός'. Μάμας Φιλίππου: 1980 και 1981: Γενικά 'Λίαν Καλός'. 1982: Γενικά'Εξαίρετος'. Γεώργιος Στεργίδης: 1980: Γενικά'Λίαν Καλός'. 1981 και 1982: Γενικά 'Εξαίρετος'. Εξαίρετες Εμπιστευτικές Εκθέσεις και στα τ ρ ί α τελευταία χρόνια έχουν επίσης και οι Βύρων Λοίζου, 10 Ανδρέας Χ" Βασίλης και Παναγιώτης Πετρίδης που δε συστήθηκαν από τ ο Διευθυντή. Η Επιτροπή έλαβε επίσης υπόψη τ α προσόντα και την α ρ χ α ι ό τ η τ α των υποψηφίων. Η Επιτροπή, έχοντας υπόψη όλα τ α ενώπιον της 15 στοιχεία, υιοθέτησετη σύσταση τ ο υΔιευθυντή για τ ο υ ς Ιωαννίδης, Μιχαηλίδης, Πολυδώρου και Παπαδό πουλο και τους επέλεξε για προαγωγή στις τέσσερις πρώτες θέσεις. Γιατις υπόλοιπες δύο θέσεις η Επιτροπή επέλεξετ ο υ ς Ζαχαριάδη και Βιολάρη,που οΔιευθυντής 20 σύστησε μαζί με τρεις άλλους προς επιλογή για την έκτη θέση. Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τον Παυλίδη, τον οποίο ο Διευθυντής σύστησε ως πέμπτο, η Επιτροπή δεν υιοθέτησε τ η σύσταση τ ο υ γ ι α τ ί έκρινεότισεσύγκριση μ' αυτούς που 25 επιλέγηκαν ο Παυλίδης ήταν κατώτερος Συμπερασματικά η Επιτροπή, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη όλα τ α ενώπιον της στοιχεία, έκρινε με βάση τ α καθιερωμένα κριτήρια στο σύνολο τους (αξία, 30 προσόντα, αρχαιότητα) ότι οι π α ρ α κ ά τ ω υπερέχουν τ ω ν άλλων υποψηφίων και αποφάσισε να τους προαγάγει σαν τ ο υ ς πιο κατάλληλους στη μόνιμη (Τακτ. Προϋπ.) θέση Ανώτερου Υγειονομικού Επιθεωρητή, 2ης Τάξης, στις Ιατρικές Υπηρεσίες και 35 Υπηρεσίες Δημόσιας Υγείας από 15.6.83: ΒΙΟΛΑΡΗΣ Γεώργιος, ΖΑΧΑΡΙΑΔΗΣ Ζαχαρίας, ΙΩΑΝΝΙΔΗΣ Πανα- 1172 5 3 C.L.R. Petrides and Others v.Republic Stylianldes J. γιώτης, ΜΙΧΑΗΛΙΔΗΣ Μόδεστος, ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ Κωστάκης, ΠΟΛΥΔΩΡΟΥ Αγαμέμων.» («Then, the Commission dealt with the evaluation and companson of the candidates. 5 10 15 20 25 The Commission examined the material factors of the file for thefillingofthepost,thepersonalfilesandthe confidential reports of the candidates and took into consideration the conclusions of the Departmental Committee and the evaluation and recommendations of the Director of Medical and HealthServices. The Commission noted that from the candidates recommended by the Director Panayiotis Ioannides, Modestos Michaelides, Agamemnon Polydorou, Costakis Papadopoulos, Zacharias Zachariades, Georghios Violaris and Panayiotis Tsangaris have excellent confidential reports for the last three years and that the confidential reports of those of the other candidates, who were also recommended by the Directorwere as followsPavlos Pavlides: 1980,1981 and 1982: 'Very good'. Mamas Philippou: 1980 and 1981: 'Very good'
(1982)'Excellent'. Georghios Stergides: 1980 «Very good», 1981 and 1982 'Excellent'. The following candidates, that is Vyron Loizou, Andreas Hji Vassilis and Panayiotis Petrides, who were not recommended by the Director have also excellent confidential reports. The Commission took, also, into consideration the qualifications andseniority of the candidates. 30 35 Bearing in mindall thematerial before it,the Commission adopted the recommendations of the Directorfor Ioannides, Michaelides, Polydorou and Papadopoulos and selected them for appointmentinthefirst four posts. Fortheother two posts theCommission selected ZachariadesandViolaris, who were -recommended by the Director together with three others for appointmentInthe sixth post. As far as Pavlides (whom the Director recommended as fifth) is concerned, the Commission did not adopt the 1173 Styllanldes J. PetridesandOthersv.Republic
(1987)recommendations of the Directorbecause initsopinion he is inferior in comparison tothose whowereselected In conclusion, the Commission, taking into considetion all the material before it, and on the basis of the established 5 criteria {merit, qualifications, seniority) reached the conclusion that the following candidates are superior to the others and decided to promote them as the most suitable to the permanent (Ordinary Budget) post of Senior Health Inspector 2nd Grade in the Medical and Public Health 10 Services as from 15.6.83: Violaris Georghios, Zachariades Zacharias, Ioannides Panayiotis, Michaelides Modestos, Papadopoulos Costakis, Polydorou Agamemnon.»). All three applicants challenge the validity of the promotion of Panayiotis Ioannides, Georghios Violaris and Costakis 15 Papadopoulos.Applicantsincases302/83and478/83challenge, also, the promotion of Zachariades and applicants in478/83 and 479/83 challenge the promotion of Agamemnon Polydorou. The grounds on which these recoursesare based are:Thattherespondents didnotcomply withSection44ofthe 20 PublicService Law 1967,(LawNo.33/67);thattheyfailed to carry out a sufficient inquiry; that they laboured under misconception of fact; thatthesubjudice decision isnot duly reasoned, and that they failed in their paramount duty to select the bestsuitable candidate forthe post. 25 Section 44
(2)of the CivilService Lawprovides that the claims of officers topromotion shallbe considered on thebasisof merit, qualifications, and seniority. Sub-section 3 provides that the Commission in making a promotion shallhavedueregardtotheannualconfidential reports 30 on the candidates and to the recommendations made in this respect bythe Head of Department inwhich the vacancyexists. The respondent Commission has to weigh together the said three criteria inordertofindthe mostsuitablecondidate.Indoing so it may attribute such significance to them as it may deem 35 proper, provided that itexercisescorrectly, inthe courseof doing so, itsrelevant discretionary powers. {Georghiou v. The Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74; The Republic v.Zachariades
(1986)3C.L.R. 852.) 1174 3 C.L.R. PetridesandOthersv.Republic Styllanldes J. In Georghiou -Full Bench case -(supra)whichwasdecided in 1976 it was not held that merit carries the most weight. In a number ofcasesdecided bysingleJudges ofthisCourtitwassaid that meritshould carrythe most weight, because the functions of 5 a public office are better performed, inthe general interest of the public, by a public officer better in merit than seniority or gualihcations. This promotion was adopted in The Republic v. Haris
(1985)3C.L.R., 106,another FullBenchcase.Zachariades, decided a year later did not adopt this statement but followed 10 Georghiou. Promotion has two objects: the service of the public and the elevation ofthecivilservant.TheCommissioninfilling promotion posts hasto take into consideration that the functions of a public officer arebetterperformed inthegeneralinterestofthepublicby 15 apublicofficer betterinmerit.Atthesametimeithastoapplythe statutory provision that the claims of the civil servants for promotion arebased onthethreecriteriasetoutintheLaw.Merit isa most weightyconsideration but itisneitherthe sole noritcan overridethe other criteria. 20 25 30 With regard toseniority Irepeat whatIsaid inSoteriadou case
(1983)3 C.L.R. 921 atp. 939:«The existence of the institution of promotion posts restricted to members of the service, safeguards adequately the interestsof those intheservice.Longserviceisrewarded by promotion as it entails acquisition of experience and qualities.Itisrightly,however,wellsettledthatseniorityisnot the decisive factor which governs promotions but one that should be dulytaken intoconsideration and itshould prevail ifallotherthingsaremore orlessequal. [Koussoulidesv. The Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 438; Partellidesv. The Republic,
(1969)3C.L.R. 480;NicosSmymios v.TheRepublic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 124).» Itiswellsettled that the PublicService Commission hastogive cogent reasons,ifthey decide to disregard the recommendations 35 oftheHeadofthe Department. Heisinthepositionto appreciate the demands of the post and the suitability of the candidates to discharge the duties of the post. (The Republic v. Haris(supra); Lardis v. The Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 64; HjiConstantinou v. The Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 65; Petrides v. Public Service 40 Commission
(1975)3 C.L.R. 284; Mytides and Another v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1096). 1175 StyUanldesJ. PetridesandOthersv.Republic
(1987)WhentherecommendationsoftheHeadoftheDepartmentare inconsistentwiththeoverallpicturepresented bythe confidential reports, they should be either disregarded or be given limited weight,dependingontheextentoftheinconsistency. (Georghiou v. The Republic (supra); The Republic v. Koufettas
(1985)3 5 C.L.R.1950). Indecidingonthemeritsofcandidates,itisnecessarytolookat the past annual confidential reports and especially at the most recentonesinordertoevaluatetheperformanceofthecandidates during theircareer asa whole.{Georghiou v.Republic
(1975)3 10 C.L.R.477;Larkosv.TheRepublic
(1982)3C.L.R. 513). Itwassubmittedbycounselforapplicantincase302/83thatthe Commissionlabouredunderamisconceptionoffact,asitwasnot beforethemthatthisapplicantattendedforoneyeartheSchoolof Medicine of the University of Prague. There is, however, a 15 certificate tothateffect inhispersonalfile. Documentationaboutscholarshipsandthecoursesattendedby theother candidates/applicantsandtheirachievements, whether a diploma was awarded to them or not, were also in their respective files. It cannot be validly said that the Commission 20 laboured under a misconception as on the principle of the presumption of regularity and the wording of the sub judice decisiontheytookintoconsiderationallthematerialbeforethem. ItwasfurthersubmittedbylearnedcounselforapplicantinCase No.302/83thatinterestedpartiesZachariadesandViolarislacked 25 therequiredqualification of«threeyearsservice»intheimmediate lowerpostsbecausetheywerenotperformingthedutiesofHealth Inspector,havingbeen secondedtootherduties. Theschemeofserviceprovidesthatacandidatemusthavethe qualification «ofat leastthree yearsserviceinthepostof Health 30 Inspector A and/or the previous post of Health Inspector 2nd Grade/Health Inspector3rdGrade». Itisundisputed thatthese twointerested partieswereholding thepostsmentionedintheschemeofserviceforoverthreeyears. In the recent case Georghios Papaleontiou v. Andreas 35 Karageorgis andAnother,R.A.350 unreported*, theschemeof service required at least «two years satisfactory service». The •Reportedm
(1987)3CLR. 211. 1176 3 C.L.B. PetridesandOthersv.Republic Styllanlde* J . appellantwasaholderofthepostofInspectorfortheprescribed period, but for most of it he was on scholarship abroad. Itwas submitted by counsel for the respondents that service and particularly «satisfactory service» means «actual service» that 5 entailsactualperformance of the dutiesof Inspector.The Court decided that«service»and«satisfactory service»inthisschemeof servicecouldnotbelimitedtoactualserviceandexcludeaperson whoisonscholarshipabroad toenhancehisknowledge inorder torenderbetterservicestotheeducation ofthecountry. 10 Theassignmentofdutiestoacivilservantotherthantheduties of his post cannot be lawfully used adversely against him and excludehimfrom promotion.(SeeConclusionsoftheCouncilof State(1929-1959)pp.341-357). Itwouldhavebeencontrarytoeverynotionorprincipleofgood 15 administration and justice, if an officer, who is directed by the HeadofhisDepartmenttoperform dutiesotherthanthoseofhis post,weretobefound atadisadvantageouspositionvis-a-vishis colleaguesregardingpromotion. Theaforesaid interestedpartieswererightlyconsideredbothby 20 theDepartmentalBoardandbythePublicServiceCommissionto possesstheservice qualification. Counsel inallthree cases made an extremely meticulous and detailed comparison of the marks of the applicants and the interested parties for almost a decade and, also, of the 25 qualifications of the applicants and the interested parties. Asa result of this very praise-worthy and conscientious work, they argued that the Commission failed to carry out reasonably sufficient inquiryandthattherecommendationsoftheHeadofthe Departmentwerenotconsistentwiththerecord. 30 Theapplicants,andtheinterestedpartieswereratedexcellent. OnlyapplicantStergidesfor oneyearwasverygood.Onemark higher or one mark lower isnot indicative that one candidateis superior to another, provided that the candidates are rated generallyexcellent.ItisnotthetaskeitheroftheCommissionor 35 theCourttocarryoutamicroscopicexamination ofthemarksof thecandidates. Having gone through the recommendations of the Directors and the files exhibits, I have not been persuaded that the recommendations of the Director were inconsistent with the 40 overallpicturepresentedbytherecords. 1177 Styllanldes «J. PetridesandOthersv.Republic
(1987)Concerningdueinquiry,itisclearfrom therelevantminutesthat the respondent Commission took into consideration the qualifications, seniority, the confidential reports and all the material before it. The personal files and the files of the confidential reports of the candidates were at all relevant times 5 before the respondent Commission; on the presumption of regularity, intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrary, itshould be accepted thatsufficient inquirywascarriedout.{Sawa v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R., 694 atpp.708-709). It is well said that the onus of establishing abuse or excess of 10 powers rests with applicant in a recourse of this nature. See Neophytou v. TheRepublic, 1964C.L.R. 280. Itwas further argued that the applicants possess qualifications additional to those required by the scheme of service. Qualifications additional to those provided by the scheme of 15 service should not weigh greatlyin the mind of the Commission, whoshould decideinselectingthebestcandidateonthetotalityof the circumstancesbefore them. I need not deal with the seniority of the parties as with the exception ofapplicantinCaseNo.478/83whohassomeseniority over interested parties Violaris and Zachariades, and applicant in 479/83Tsangariswho isbyfewmonthsseniortoZachariades,all interested partiesare senior tothe applicant. Theseniorityof the above mentioned applicantsisnotsuch astotipthescalesintheir favour. Reasoning: According to well established principles of administrative law, administrative acts have to be sufficiently reasoned; and that the lack of sufficient reasoning renders them contrary to law and as taken in excess or abuse of power. Further the need for due 30 reasoninghastobe observed morestrictlyincasesofdecisionsof administrative organs which are adverse to the citizens. (See Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO) v. Board of Cinematograph FilmsCensors
(1965)3C.L.R.27; Constantinides v. Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 7atp. 14; Georghiades &Others v. 35 Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 653;Papazachariou v.Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 486 at p. 504; Eleftheriou v. Central Bank of Cyprus
(1980)3 C.L.R. 85;Mikellidou v.Republic
(1981)3C.L.R.461at p. 471;Papageorghiou v.Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1348. 1178 20 25 3 C.L.R. Petrides andOthersv.Republic Styllanldes J. The reasoning of an administrative act may be supplemented from the material in the files. (See Leontios Papaleontiou v. Republic
(1967)3C.L.R. 624;Mavromatisv.Educational Service Committee
(1974)3 C.L.R. 226 at p. 236; HadjiCleanthous v. 5 Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 810; Petrides v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 216; Orictaco v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1327; Strata ToursLtd. v.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.2560;Christouv. Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 89; Alona Co-Operative Society v. Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R, 222 atp.229. 10 Unless the circumstances of the case specifically call for it, itis not necessary for all factors that have been taken into consideration andweighedbytheadministration tobe mentioned in the reasoning of the decision. (See Mouzouris v. Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 43atp.48; Vassiliou v.Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 15 220atp. 228). Inthe instant case takinginto consideration the wording of the subjudicedecision initsentiretyaswellasthematerial inthe file Icannotconcludethatthesubjudicedecisionlacksduereasoning. The lastground canvassed isthat the respondent Commission 20 failed toselectthebestsuitablecandidatesforthepost.ThisCourt will not interfere with the decision of the Commission when it appears thatitisreasonably opentoittoselectaparticular officer, instead of another, for promotion. The administrative Court cannot intervene inorder tosetaside the decision regardingsuch 25 selection unlessitissatisfied, byan applicantinarecourse before it,that he wasan eligible candidate whowasstrikinglysuperior to the one whowas selected, because only insuch a casethe organ which has made the selection for the purpose of an appointment or promotion is deemed to have exceeded the outer limits of its 30 discretion and, therefore, to have acted in excess or abuse of its powers;also,insuch asituation thecomplained ofdecision ofthe organconcernedistoberegardedaseitherlackingdue reasoning or as based on unlawful or erroneous or otherwise invalid reasoning. The onus of establishing striking superiority lies 35 always on the applicant in a recourse. «Striking superiority» was defined inHadjioannou v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041in which the analysis of the term in .Hadjisawa v. The Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 76was adopted. In my opinion the applicants failed to establish that they are 40 strikinglysuperiortotheinterested parties. 1179 StylianidesJ. Petridesand Othersv.Republic
(1987)The choice of the most suitable candidate for promotion rests on the competent organ and thisCourt doesnotannul adecision of an appointing authority, which, in all the circumstances of the case, it was reasonably open to it. The sub judice decision was reasonably open tothe respondent Commission. . 5 For the reasons given above, the recourses are dismissed and the promotions of all interested partiesare confirmed. Letthere be no order astocosts. Recourses dismissed. No orderastocosts. 10 118Q