(1988)1988October3 [HADJTTSANGARIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION DEMETRAKJSSTAVRIDES, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 404/83>. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidentialreports—Bias—Itmustbeestablishedwithsufficientcertaintyeitherbyfactsemergingfromtheadministrativerecordsorbysafeinferencestobedrawnfromtheexistenceofsuch facts. PublicOfficers—Promotions—Seniority—Significance of—The least conse- -* quentialfactor—Itprevailsonlyifotherfactorsaremoreorlessequal. PublicOfficers—Promotions—HeadofDepartment—Recommendationsof— Theygotomeritandcannotbelightlydisregarded. PublicOfficers—Promotions—JudicialControl·—Principlesapplicable. NaturalJustice—Bias—Howestablished. 10 Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Maybefoundeitherinthedecisionitself orintheofficialrecordsrelatedthereto. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearinthejudgmentoftheCourt Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. \5 1830 3 C.L.R. Casesreferredto: Stavrides v. Republic . , Chnstouv.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.437; Soteriadouv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 300; Thalassinosv. TheRepublic
(1988)3 C.L.R.1683; "' Karagiorgis v.C.B.C.
(1985)3C.L.R. 378; Partelidesv. TheRepublic
(1969)3CUR. m; " Hadjisawa'v. TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. ' Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe 10 interestedpartiestothepostofSeniorClericalOfficer intheGeneralClericalStaff inpreferenceandinsteadoftheapplicant. 1 M.ChristofideSyfortheapplicant. " I '" ' R. Gavrielides, SeniorCounsel of theRepublic, for therespondent. , Cur. adv. vult. -' ' * . ·: •' HADJITSANGARIS J.'readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicant bymeans of thisrecoursechallenges thedecision of the .respondent Public Service Commission dated-17th June 1983, wherebytheinterested parties,namely 1.AndreasAthanasiou,
- .20 Anninos Pavlides,
- Nicos Kailides,
- Andreas Antoniou,
- KyriacosPavlides,6.MichaelPaphitis,7.LeonidasKyriacou,
- Antonios Nicolaou,
- Emilios Lazarou and 10.Josef Nacousi werepromotedtothepostofSeniorClericalOfficerintheGeneralClericalStaff,inpreferenceofand-insteadoftheapplicant.The 25 complaintsoftheapplicantcanbeclassified asfollows: 15 1831 Hadjitsangaris J. Stavrides v. Republic
(1988)(a)That the interested parties were inferior tothe applicant, who had striking superiority overthemasregardsmerit, qualificationsandseniority. (b)Thatthedecisionoftherespondentisnotdulyand/orlegallyreasoned. \ * Inthiswritten addresslearnedcounselfortheapplicantcomplainsagainstthevalidityoftheconfidential reportswhichwere preparedfortheapplicantduringtheyears 1981 and 1982. Asregardstheconfidentialreportoftheapplicantfortheyear 1981 itis hisallegationthatthereportingofficer failed toconsulthisprede- 10 cessor in respect of the preceding period of 9 months during whichhehadnoknowledgeaboutapplicant'sservice.Theapplicantwasratedgenerallyas"verygood"inhisconfidential report fortheyear 1981,bythereportingofficer forthatyear,acertain Mavromoustakis. The aforesaid reporting officer says clearly 15 (videred 137inthepersonalfileoftheapplicant)thattheconfidentialreportof theapplicantfor 1981waspreparedbyhimafter exchange ofviewsonthematterwiththethenactingDirector— General of theMinistry ofDefence Mr.Kontoziswhoknewthe applicant very well and whocountersigned theaforesaid confi- 20 dentialreportoftheapplicant. Complaintsarealsoadvancedbytheapplicantabouthisconfidentialreport inrespect of theyear 1982,during which hewas rated as "Good".Theapplicanthasalsofiled anaffidavit dated 18.2.1986imputing lackofimpartiality andbiasagainsthimon -<; thepartofthereportingandcountersigningofficer, whowasthe sameperson. Ihavecarefully considered theallegationsoftheapplicantas regards lack of impartiality in his confidential reports for 1981 and 1982.Lackofimpartialitymustbeestablishedwithsufficient 30 certaintyeitherbyfactsemergingfrom therelevantadminsitrarive recordsorby safe inferences tobedrawnfrom theexistenceof such facts. (Christou v.TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.437atp. 449;Soteriadouv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.300andtherecentcaseoiThalassinosv.TheRepublic
(1988)3C.L.R.1683). 35 1832 3C.L.R. Stavridesv.Republic 7 I Hadjitsangaris J. f ' t Intheinstant case,on thematerial before me,Ifindthatthe applicanthasfaiieiitoestablishbiasorlackofimpartiality.Inthe resultthisgroundfails. ,. 5 Ishallnowproceedtoexaminetheothercomplaintsthatis(a) theallegedsuperiorityoftheapplicantovertheinterestedparties asregardsmerit,qualifications andseniority and(b)lackofdue reasoningpf thesub-judicedecision. ' • · . . - * ' .,Thepicture,of the applicant and theinterested partiesasregards merit transpires from their confidential reports.,Thus al10 thoughtheapplicantappearstobebetterthanmostoftheinterest·; edpartiesin 1980(withtheexceptionofinterestedparties8arid 10),allinterestedpartiesappearto'bebetterthantheapplicantin 1981 arid 1982.The interested parties have,,moreover, therecommendations of the Head of theDepartment which goes to 25 meritandcountsinfavour ofthoserecommendedaridcannotbe lightly disregarded. (Karagiorgisv.CSC,
(1985)3,C.L.R.378 atp.388).Asaresulttheapplicantisinferior„in meritto.theinterestedparties. •, - , ., 20 Asregardsqualifications, thequalifications of the applicant andtheinterested partiesaremoreorlessthesame.Knowledge bytheapplicantoftheFrenchlanguagewhichisnotenvisagedby theschemeof service,doesnotput theapplicantinanadvantageouspositionvis-a-vistheinterestedparties. Comingnowtothefactor of seniority,theapplicantissenior 25. toallinterestedparties,hisseniorityrangingfromoneyeareight months to four years and one month. Seniority however is the leastconsequentialfactor andshouldprevailonlywhenallother criteriaaremoreorlessequal(Partelidesv.TheRepublic
(1969)3C.L.R.480)whichisnotthecasehere,sincetheinterestedpar*« tiesarebetterinmeritthantheapplicant. ItisacardinalprincipleofAdministrativeLawthatanadministrativecourtwillnotinterfere inordertosetasideadecisionregardingaselectionorpromotionunlessitissatisfied byanappli1833 Hadjitsangaris J. Stavrides v.Republic
(1988)cantinarecoursethathewasstrikinglysuperiortothosepromoted.Althoughtheapplicantisseniortotheinterestedpartiesseniority ofitself cannotestablish striking superiority inthepresent case. In the circumstance Ifindthat the applicant has failed to showanyreasonwhythisCourtshouldinterfere withthediscre- 5 tion of the respondent which wasreasonably exercised in the presentcase. Asregardsthelastcomplaint,notablyreasoning,itiswellsettled that "reasoning behind an administrative decision may be foundeitherinthedecisionitselforintheofficial recordsrelated JQ thereto" (Hadjisavvav. TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R. 174at p.205).IntheinstantcaseIholdtheviewthatthedecisionitself provides thenecessaryreasoningfor theadministrativedecision andatthesametimethematerialintheadministrativefilessupport thereasoning afforded bytherespondent Commission ena- ,blingunhinderedjudicialscrutiny. InviewofalltheaboveIamoftheopinionthatthesub-judice decision wasreasonably open totherespondent Commissionon thematerialbeforeitandtherecoursemusttherefore fail. Foralltheabovereasons thepresentrecoursefails andisac- 20 cordinglydismissedwithnoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1834