(1987)1987December28 [KOURRIS.J] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION CHRISTOSKRAMVIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 8/87). Public Officers — Promotions — Qualifications — Scheme of service — Interpretationand application of— Judicialcontrol—Pnnciplesapplicable —fnthiscase,itwasnot reasonablyopen totheCommission toconsiderthe interested party as qualified under the relevant scheme for the post of Registrarin the Psychiatnc Service of the Department ofMedicalServices — TheRegistrationofinterestedpartyasaspecialistinPsychiatryunder the Medical Registration Law, Cap. 250. as amended, does not satisfy the requirement ofthescheme foradiploma ortitleorspecialityin Psychiatry. TheMedicalRegistrationLaw, Cap.250 asamended—Medical Council—Does nothave power toawarddiplomas ortitles. 5 \0 PublicOfficers—Promotions —HeadofDepartment —Dutiesof, Public Officers — Promotions — Interviews, perfomnance at — Weight to be attached thereto. PublicOfficers—Promotions — Confidentialreports—Asixmonthly reportfor officerserving onprobation prepared afteradvertisement ofpost inquestion — Not safe to compare it with several confidential reports of another candidate. \5 Public Officers — Promotions — The criteria,which have to be taken into consideration. By this recourse, the applicant, challenges the decision of the Public 2 0 Service Commission to promote the interested party, namely, Andreas Demetriou, to the post of Registrar in the Psychiatric Services of the 2114 3C.L.R. Kramvis v. Republic Department ofMedicalServicesasfrom 15 6 86 inpreferenceand/or instead of the applicant The relevant scheme of service reads as follows «Registration in the medical register of Cyprus and diploma or title of speciality in Psychiatry acquired after post graduate training and as a result of successful r «examination» (ηοκιμποιπί 10 ιc The interested party is the holder of a diploma in medicine of the Higher Institute of Medicine of Sofia and was registeredas a medical practitioner in Cyprus under the Medical Registration Law Cap 250 He is also the holder of a certificate for Specialization in Psychiatry of the Cyprus Medical Council and was appointed as a Medical Officer Class I in the Psychiatnc service on 8 1185 It must be notedthat aletter by Professor of Psychiatry F A Jenner who is the Head of the Psychiatnc Department of the University of Sheffield stating that the interestedparty had8 years of trainingandwork inclinical psychiatry and that he is fully experienced and competent enough to be regarded as a psychiatnc specialist was placedbefore the Commission 20 Heid annulling the sub judice decision (A)
(1)To satisfy the requirements of the scheme of service in question a candidate must be (
- a)registered as a medical practitioner in Cyprus (
- b)the holder of a diploma or title of a speciality in Psychiatry and (
- c)this degree or title was acquired after post graduate training and asa result of successful examination 25 diploma or title of Speciality in Psychiatry obtained in England What the lettersof ProfessorJenner datedApril 1979and 19thMay 1986convey isthe experience and training received by the interested party
(2)Nowhere does it appear that the interested party was the holder of a 30 3b
(3)The registration of the applicant as a specialist in accordance with Regulation Λ of the regulations made under s 23
(2)of the Medical Registration Law Cap 250(asamended) amounts toadiploma ortitle within theambit ofthe scheme of service Itappears fromthewordingofthelaw that the Medical Council of Cyprus does not award any diploma or title of speciality
(4)T"heword «δοκιμασία» in thescheme ofservice viewed in the context of the whole of the scheme of service has the meaning of «εξετασις» ι e examination
(5)In the light of the above, it was not reasonably opento the respondent Commission to interpret the scheme of service in the way it did (B)Assuming thattheinterestedpartywasqualifiedfortheposttnquestion 2115
(1987)Kramvfts v. Republic
(1)The applicanthad betterqualifications With regard toment,there was before the respondent Commission a six monthly report for the interested party as he was serving on probation at the matenal time,in which he was rated as «excellent» The report was prepared after the advertising of the sub judice post and the confidential reports of the applicant for each of the 5 years from 1981-1985 by which he was rated«very good» Itwas notsafe to compare the applicant and the interested party regarding ment because the applicantwas assessedforanumberofyears pnortothedecision inquestion, whereas the interested party was assessed for six months The respondent Commission should not have attached much weight to the confidenbal 10 reportsof theapplicantand therespondent Inview of theabove theapplicant established striking supenonty because interms hehas better qualifications and sinking semonry
(2)The respondent Commission in selecting the interested party gave undue weight totheimpression madeat theinterview and tothefact thathis \ 5 six monthly report rated himas «excellent» The performance of a candidate at aninterview isa relevant consideration towhich theDepartmentHead, as well as the Commission, may pay due regard, but the significance to be attached tothe impressions vanes with therequirements of thepost andthe importanceof acandidate'spersonality foraneffective discharge oftheduties 2 0 assigned by thescheme ofservice
(3)Froma perusal of the minutes of the Public Service Commission, itis apparent that in this case the Head of the Department manifestly failed to carry out hisduties as defined m Republic ν Hans
(1985)3 C LR 106 Sub judice decisionannulled No orderas tocosts 25 Casesreferred to Papapetrou ν TheRepublic,2 RS C C 61, Petsasν TheRepublic,3RS CC 60, 30 Republic ν Aivaiiohs
(1971)3 C LR 89, Vryomdesv TheRepublic (19S4)3 C LR 89, Frangoulidesand Another ν PSC
(1985)3CLR 1680, Republic ν Xinan &Others,
(1985)3 C LR 1922, Republic ν Rousos
(1987)3 C LR 1217, Republic ν Hans
(1985)3C L R 106. Makndesv TheRepublic
(1983)3 C LR 622, 2116 35 3 C.L.R. KramvUv. Republic Republic v. Maratheftis
(1986)3 C.LR. 1407; Sawa v.TheRepublic
(1980)3 C.LR.675; Panayiotides v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R.525; Recourse. 5 Recourseagainst thedecision of therespondenttopromotethe interested party tothe post of Registrar inthe Psychiatric Services of the Departmentof Medical Services in preference and instead of theapplicant. A.S. Angelides, for theapplicant. 10 Ρ Hadjidemetriou, for therespondent. M. Tsangarides, for E.Efstathiou, for the interested party. Cur.adv.vult KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. By this recourse, the applicant challenges the decision of the Public Service 15 Commission to promote the interested party, namely, Andreas Demetriou, to the post of Registrar in the Psychiatric Services Λ the Department of Medical Services as from 15.6.1986 in preference and/orinstead of theapplicant. The post isa first entry and promotion post. 20 Pursuant to a request made by the Director-General of ..he Ministry of HealthtothePublicService Commission for the filling of two vacancies in the post of Registrar, Psychiatric Services, respondent Commission referred the matterto the Departmental Committee which was set up for thatpurpose inaccordancewith 25 the provisions of s. 36 of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/ 67)toinvestigate andadviseonthequalifications andsuitability of candidates for promotion to the above posts in the Medical Departmentof theCivilService. TheDepartmentalCommitteeby itsreport,which was submitted totherespondent Commission by 30 letterdated 15.4.1986, recommendedthreecandidatesaseligible for promotiontothepost inquestion, including theapplicantand the interested party. The advocate of the applicant addressed a letter dated 18.4.1986 to the respondent Commission alleging that the 2117 Kourrfs J. Kramvtsv.Republic
(1987)candidate Andieas Dernetriou was called by the Departmental Committee for an interview although he lacked the required qualifications ofthe schemeofservicetotheeffect that hewasnot theholderofadiplomaortitleofspecialityinPsychiatry obtained after post-graduate training, and as a result of successful examination. 5 The respondent Commission at its meeting of 9.5.1986 considered thereportoftheDepartmentalCommittee,and having taken into consideration all the material before it, including the letter of the Head of the Psychiatric Department of the Sheffield 10 University, (Appendix 7 to the .Opposition) decided that the interested party satisfied the requirements of the scheme of service, and the advocate of the applicant was informed accordingly byletter dated 26.5.1986. The final meeting oftherespondent Commissiontookplaceon 15 the2ndJune, 1986.TheHead oftheDepartmentwaspresent and the respondent Commission interviewed the candidates in his presencr TheHead ofthe Department expressed hisviewsonthe performance of the candidates and left. The respondent Commission made an independent assessment of the 20 performance of the candidates at the interview coinciding with that of the Head of the Department. In the opinion of both, the performance of the interested party at the interview was better than that of the applicant i.e. the interested party wasassessed as «Very Very Good» and the applicant as «Very Good». The 25 Respondent Commission, having assessed the material before them, including the confidential reports of the parties, their personal files, their seniority and their performance at the interview, in the light of the views expressed by the Head of the Department, they concluded that the interested party was best 30 suited for appointment and promoted him accordingly. The promotion waspublished intheOfficial GazetteoftheRepublicof 19th May, 1986 under No. 2559 and the applicant, feeling aggrieved, filed a recourse under No. 421/86 challenging the promotion of the interested party. ^5 The advocate of the applicant addressed a letter to the respondent Commission dated 19.7.86 on behalf of his client requesting the review ofthe decision inquestion allegingthat the promotion of the interested party to the post of Registrar in the Psychiatric Services, is illeg-i! Secause he does not possess the 40 2118 3CX.R. Kramvlsv. Republic KourriaJ. required qualifications of the scheme of service. He enclosed a letter dated 4.7.1986 by the Dean of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, atelex dated3.7.1986 andaletterby Dennis Leigh. 5 10 The office of thePublicService Commission addressed a letter to the interested party asking him to commenton the said letter. The interested party, through his advocate Mr. Efstathiou, addressed a letter to the respondent Commission stating thatthe interested party possessed the required qualifications of the scheme of service, (appendix 14). The Respondent Commission convened on 5.11.1986, and having reconsidered the matter,decided thatthe interested party satisfied therequirements of theschemeof service. Theirdecision appearsinAppendix 15oftheoppositionwhich readsas follows: 15 w # 20 25 30 35 «Η Επιτροπή,α φ ο ύ εξέτασε μεπροσοχήτ οόλο θέμα, έκρινε ότι οΑνδρέας Δημητρίου ικανοποιεί τις πρόνοιες τ ο υ Σχεδίου Υπηρεσίας. Ειδικότερα, ο υποψήφιος αυτός αναγνωρίστηκε στην Κύπρο ως Ειδικός Ψυχίατρος δυνάμει τ ο υ Κανονισμού
(3)των περί t Εγγραφής Ιατρών (Ειδικά Προσόντα) Κανονισμών τ ο υ 1979 και επομένως έχει τίτλο ειδικότητας στην Ψυχιατρική δυνάμει τηςΚυπριακήςΝομοθεσίας, α φ ο προηγουμένως έτυχε μεταπτυχιακής εκπαίδευσης κα; επιτυχούς δοκιμασίας στο Ψυχιατρικό Τμήμα τ ο υ Πανεπιστημίου του Sheffield». «The Respondent Commission decided that the interest*d party possessed the required qualifications and in particular they have taken into consideration that the interested party was recognized inCyprus asa specialist psychiatrist by virtue of Regulation 3of theRegistration of MedicalOfficers (Special Qualifications) Regulationsof 1979, andconsequently hehad the title of Specialist in Psychiatry in accordance with the Cyprus legislation having previously post graduate training and successful examination at the Psychiatric Departmentof theUniversityof Sheffield». The advocate of the applicant was informed by letter dated 9.12.1986 of the decision of the Public Service Commission. Hence thepresent recourse. At the hearing of this recourse counsel for the applicant withdrew recourse No.421/86, whichwasaccordingly dismissed. 2119 KourrisJ . Kramvtsv. Republic
(1987)The centralissueinthisrecourse iswhether theinterested party possesses the qualifications envisaged by thescheme of service. The applicant istheholderof adiploma inmedicine, University of Athens, and was registered as aMedicalPractitionerin Cyprus. He is also the holder of a diploma in Psychology of the Royal 5 College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Surgeons of England. He is also the holder of a certificate for Specialization in Psychiatry of the Cyprus Medical Council. He was first appointed as aMedical Officer Class IIon 15.2.1973and on 1.5.1977was promoted tothepost of MedicalOfficer Class I. 10 As from 1.1.1981 he is serving a.s Medical Officer Class Iin the Psychiatric Services of theMedical Department. Theinterested partyistheholderofadiplomainmedicineofthe Higher Institute of Medicine of Sofia, and was registered as a medical practitioner in Cyprus under the Medical Registration 15 Liw, Cap. 250. He is also the holder of a certificate for *• Specialization iri Psychiatry of the Cyprus Medical Council and w3s appointed as a Medical Officer Class I in the Psychiatric services on 8.11.1985. The relevant scheme of service reads:- 20 «3.Απαιτούμεναπροσόντα: Α. Διά Πρώτον Διορισμόν
(1)Εγγραφή EI S τ ο Μητρώον Ιατρών Κύπρου και δίπλωμα ή Τίτλος ειδικότητος εις την Ψυχιατρικήν, κτήθείς κατόπιν μεταπτυχιακής εκπαιδεύσεως και 25 επιτυχούς δοκιμασίας, ή ιδιότης μέλους επαγγελματικού ιατρικού σώματος τ ο υ Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου, ήτοι M.R.C. PSYCHIATRISTS, η ετέρου ισοτίμου επαγγελματικού ιατρικού σώματος άλλης χώρας (+τ·Χ· Ιρλανδίας, Καναδά, Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, 30 Αυστραλίας κλπ.)» IriEnglish, so far as relevant for thedeterminationof the case,it may be translated as follows:cRegistration inthemedicalregister of Cyprus anddiploma or titleof specialty inPsychiatry, acquired after post-graduate ^5 training and as a result of successful examination.» 2120 3 C.L.R. c Kramvlsv.Republic Kourrto J. In my opinion, to satisfy the requirements of the scheme of service inquestion, acandidate mustbe (a)registeredasa medical practitioner in Cyprus; (
- b)the holder of a diploma or title of a specialty in Psychiatry; and (
- c)this degree or title was acquired after post-graduate training and as a result of successful examination. Counsel for the applicant argued that the interested partylacks the qualifications for the post in question because he has no diploma or titleofspecialty inpsychiatry,and thatpossession ofa 10 cenificate with specialization in psychiatry of the Cyprus Medical Council,does notsatisfy thescheme ofservice. Counsel for the respondents and counsel for the interested party argued that the interested partypossesses the qualifications for the post in question and thai the word «dokimasia» does not 15 necessarily rrean examination. They further argued thatthe letter of Professor or Psychiatry F.A. Jenner who is the Head of the Psychiatric Department of the University ofSheffield, stating that the interested party had 8 years of training and work in clinical psychiatry and thathe isfully experienced andcompetent enough 20 to be regarded asa psychiatnc specialist issufficient tosatisfy the requirements of thescheme ofservice in question. Itiscommon groundthatbothapplicantandtheinterestedparty are registered as medical practitioners in Cyprus and they satisfy (
- a)above. It appears also from the material before me that the 25 interested party isnotthe holderof adiploma or titleof specialty. It appears from the said letter of Professor Jenner that the interested party has been employed asa Senior House Officer in Psychiatry from February, 1973 to May, 1980 and that he has completed a full training course under their rotational registrar 30 teaching training scheme organized by the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Sheffield. When he completed his training as a Registrar he was promoted to a senior Psychiatrist workingcloselywithconsultantpsychiatristsfrom April,1976until May, 1980.ThisProfessor concluded thattheinterestedpartywas 35 fully experienced and competent enough to be regarded as a psychiatric specialist. The interested party was also made Honorary Member of the University of Sheffield, U.K. Nowhere doesitappearthattheinterestedpartywastheholderofadiploma or title of Specialty Ih Psychiatry, obtained in England. What the 40 lettersof Professor Jenner dated April, 1979and 19th May, 1986 2121 KottfrtsJ. KramvUv. Republic
(1987)state, is the experience and training received by the interested party. These two letters also describe the status of the interested party whilst in the Department of Psychiatry of the University of Sheffield. Inviewoftheabove,thequestionwhichposesforconsideration 5 is whether the registration of the applicant as a specialist in accordance with Regulation 3 of the regulations made under s. 23
(2)of the Medical Registration Law, Cap. 250 (as amended) amounts to a diploma or title within the ambit of the scheme of service. Itappears from the wording of the law that the Medical 10 Council of Cyprus does not award any diplomas or titles of specialty.Whatthelawprovidesisthatamedical practitioner may describe himself as a specialist or use the word «specialist» if he possessescertainqualifications.Thequalifications provided under this law do not in any way envisage that the medical practitioner 15 should betheholderofadiplomaortitleofspecialtyinordertobe registered as a specialist by virtue of the law and regulations existingatthetime of thesubjudice promotion.Theprovisionsof the Medical Registration Law, Cap. 250 merely allow a medical practitioner to make use of the word «specialist» or to describe 20 himself asa specialist. I am of the view that although the interested party had the qualifications to describe himself as a specialist orto make useof theword«specialist»undertheMedicalRegistrationLaw,Cap.250 (asamended),thatis,hesatisfied therequirementsofthatlaw,this certificate of specialty ofthe Medical Council of Cyprus, does not inany way satisfy the requirements of thescheme of service.The said certificate isnotthe titleordiploma required bythe scheme of service which must be obtained after a postgraduate training and asa result ofsuccessful examinations. Counsel fortherespondentandtheinterestedpartyarguedthat the word «dokimasia» does not necessarily mean examination. TheGreek dictionaryofDimitrakougivesthemeaningoftheword «dokimasia»as«exetasis,erevna, elenhos».Hewentontosaythat in view of the contents of the letter of Professon Jenner the 35 applicant can be considered as possessing the required qualificiations, although hedid nottake any examination. I have considered thisargument and ' came to the conclusion thattheword «dokimasia»in the scheme of the serviceviewed in thecontext ofthewhole oftheschemeofservicehasthemeaning 40 2122 25 30 3 C.L.R. Kramvi·v. Republic Konrrls J. >t «exetasis». ιe examination Even if themeaning of the word is not «examination», then I do notthinkthatithelps thecase for the interested party any further because he is not the holder of a diploma or titleof specialty 5 10 It is a well established pnnciple that the interpretation of a scheme of service is within the province of the Public Service Commission and that this Court will not interfere with such interpretation so long as it is one reasonably open to the administrative authonty,ιe the Public Service Commission. See Papapetrou ν The Republic, 2 R S C C 61, Persas ν The Republic, 3 RS C C 60, Republic ν Aivahotis,
(1971)3 C L R 89 Vryonides ν Republic,
(1984)3 C LR 1567, Frangoulltdes andAnotherv PSC
(1985)3CLR 1680, Republic ν Xman& Others.
(1985)3CLR 1922 15 Inviewof theabove, I am of theviewthatitwas not reasonably open for thePublicService Commission tointerprettheschemeof service intheway they did,and Iconcludethattheinterested party was not the holder of a diploma or title of Specialist in Psychiatry envisaged by the scheme of service 20 Ipropose now to examine the substance of the case, if it were held thattheinterested party possessed thequalifications required by the scheme of service 25 30 35 Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was stnkingly supenor tothe interest party and he ought tohave been promoted tothepost in question instead of the interest party Itis a well settled pnnciple of Administrative Law thatwhen an administrative organ such as the Public Service Commission selects acandidateonthebasisof compansonwith others,itisnot necessary to show, in order to justify his selection that he was stnkingly supenor to the others On the other hand, an administrative court cannot interfere in order to set aside the decision unless the applicant establishes that he had sinking supenonty over the interested party. The cntenawhich the Public Service Commission have to take into consideration when reaching a decision have been expounded in the case of Republic v. Rousos
(1987)3 C L.R 1217 atpp 1222-1223.2123 KourrisJ. Kramvisv. Republic
(1987)«Ontheotherhand,thereisnothingintheZachariadescase to prevent giving effect to the dictum in the Menelaou case, supra, whichwasadopted bytheHariscase,that 'meritshould carrythe most weight', solongasthisisnotmisunderstood to mean that merit should invariably be treated, in an inflexible 5 way, as being exclusively the decisive criterion, because in view of theJudgment inthe Georghiou, lendes and Christou cases, supra, there may exist situations in the special circumstances of which, and provided that there are not overstepped the limitsof the proper exercise of the relevant 10 discretionary powers, a criterion other than merit may be found to be more important than the other. But itis, indeed, obvious that cogent reasonsshouldbegiveninordertojustify why merit hasnotbeen treated ina particular case, inviewof the existence of special circumstances, as carrying the most 15 weight». Inthe present case,inso farasseniority isconcerned, thereisa marked difference between theapplicant and the interested party in favour of the applicant; the applicant is, by 8 years and six months senior tothe interested party. 20 Regarding qualifications, the applicant hasbetter qualifications because he isthe holder of a diploma in Psychology of the Royal College of Physicans of London, and the Royal College of SurgeonsofEngland,obtained after takingaformal and successful examination in psychiatry. With regard to merit, there was before the respondent Commission asixmonthlyreportfortheinterested partyashewas servingon probation atthe material time,inwhichhewasratedas «excellent», and the confidential reports of the applicant for each of theyearsfrom 1981-1985 bywhich hewasrated«verygood». 30 Ido not think that it isasafe comparison of the applicant and the interested party regarding merit because the applicant was assessed for a number of years prior to the decision in question, whereas the interested party was assessed for six months; in my viewthe respondent Commission should nothave attached much 35 weight to the confidential reports of the applicant and the respondent, inasmuch astheconfidential reportofthe interested partywasprepared bythereporting officer after theadvertisingof the posts inthe Official Gazette, the post being one of first entry andpromotion;i.e.therepor» oftheinterestedpartywasprepared 40 when promotions were about totake place. 2124 25 3 C.L.R. KramvUv.Republic KoarrtaJ. Inviewoftheabove,Iamsatisfiedthattheapplicantestablished striking superiority because in terms he has better qualifications andstrikingseniority. Itappearsfromthesubjudicedecisionwhichappearsatp.3of 5 Appendix 10totheoppositionthattherespondentCommissionin selectingtheinterestedpartygaveundueweighttotheimpression made attheinterview and tothefact thathissix monthlyreport rated him as «excellent». Froma perusal of the minutes of the Public Service Commission, it is apparent that in this case the 1ο Headofthedepartmentmanifestly failed tocarryouthisdutiesas defined above. He confined his inquiry to impressions gained from the interview of the candidates and he also stated thatall candidatesaresuitable toserveinthepostof Registrar. RelevantisthecaseofRepublicv. Haris
(1985)3C.L.R.106,a 15 decision of the FullBench of theSupreme Court,inwhich atp. 112thefollowingisstated: 20 25 «'Recommendations'inthecontextofthissectionhastobe given itspopularmeaningratherthantakenas being usedin any narrowlegal ortechnicalsense. Itcarrieswith ittheduty on the Head of the Department togive a description of the merits of the candidatesand by comparingtheir respective meritsanddemerits tosuggestwho is morequalified forthe post.Hehastomakeanassessment ofthesuitability ofevery candidate on a consideration of all factors relevant to his merits, qualifications and seniority, and then make a comparison ofthecandidatesbyreference thereto.» Again,inthecaseofMakridesv. TheRepublic,
(1983)3C.L.R. 622, it was held that in making recommendations before the PublicService Commission,theHeadofDepartmenthasadutyto 3Q make an assessment of the suitability of a candidate on a consideration of all factors relevant to his merits, qualifications andseniority and,then,makeacomparisonofthe candidatesby reference thereto. Furthermore, the recommendations of the Head of the 35 DepartmenttothePublicService Commissionastheyappearatp. 2 of Appendix 10 to the opposition, Ismisleading as based on insufficient inquiry.Hesaidthatqualifications ofallcandidatesare more orless thesame. Further, he said matthepossession of a diploma in neurology or psychiatry is an ancillary factor tothe 40 exercise of the duties of that post. It is apparent that the 2125 KourrlsJ . Kramvls v. Republic
(1987)qualifications of the applicant and the respondent are not more or less the same. The applicant, as I said hereinbefore, is the holder of a diploma in psychiatry obtained as a result of examinations whereas the interested party lacks such a diploma. Again,thepossession ofadiploma inpsychiatry isnotanancillary 5 factor but it is a necessary qualification in accordance with the scheme of service. Ithasbeen held inseveralcasesoftheSupreme Courtthat the performance of a candidates at an interview is a relevant consideration to which the Department Head, as well as the 10 Commission, may pay due regard, and thatthesignificance to be attached to the impressions varies with the requirements of the post and the importance of a candidate's personality for an effective dischargeofthedutiesassignedbytheschemeofservice. (See The Republic v. Maratheftis,decided by the Full Bench on 15 25.7.1986, Revisional Appeal 575 and not yet reported*; Makrides v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 622; Sawa v. The Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 675,and Panayiotides v. The Republic,
(1986)3C.L.R.525. In the light of the above, Iam of the view that the sub judice 20 decision, in addition to the fact that the applicant established striking superiority and ought to have been setaside because the Public Service Commission exercised its discretion wrongfully, this decision should also have been rescinded because it is vulnerable for the reasons I had given hereinabove. 25 The recourse succeeds and the promotion of the interested party is set aside, but in the circumstances I do not propose to make any orderastocosts. Sub judice decision annulled. No order asto costs. •Reported m
(198b)3 C.L.R. 1407. 2126 30