clr/1988/1988_3_2249.pdf

(1988)PublicOfficers—Promotions—HeadofDepartment—Recommendationsof— Special reasonsshould begiven why they were disregarded—in this case theywerenotfollowedbecause theinterestedparty "ingeneralwassuperioratthematerialtimeandwasmoresuitable..."—inthecircumstancesthis reasonisverygeneralandinconsistentwiththematerialinthe file. 5 PublicOfficers—Promotions—Confidential reports—What really matters is . thepicturepresentedbytheoverallgradeinthereport—Republicv.Roussos

(1987)3CLM. 1217approved. Timewithin whichtofile arecourse—Arequirementindependentfromtherequirementoflegitimateinterest—Theexistenceornotofalegitimateinterest 10 tochallengeaparticularactordecisiondoesnotaffectthecomputationof theperiodof75 days. Legitimate interest—Absence of—Does notprevent thetime, within which a recoursemaybefiled,tostartrunning. Annulmentofadministrativeactordecision—Effect—Promotionsofpublicof- 15 ficers—Challenge ofthe promotion ofonly oneofthefour officers, who hadbeenpromotedbythesameacttoaparticularpost—Annulmentofsuch officers'promotion onagroundaffecting legalityoftheact—Whetheradministration bound torevoke thepromotions ofthe otherthree officers— Question determined inthenegative—Administration bound tocompare 20 afresh thesuccessfulapplicant with the officer, whosepromotion was annulled. TheprinciplesexpoundedbytheCourtindismissingtheappealsand cross-appealinthiscaseappearsufficiently inthehereinaboveheadnote. Appealsandcross-appeal dismissed.Noorderastocosts. •" Casesreferredto: MichaelandAnotherv.ThePublicService Commission

(1982)3C.L.R. 726; MytidesandAnotherv. TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R.1096; PhotosPhotiadesandCo.v.TheRepublic, 1964C.L.R. 102; 2250 3Q 3 C.L.R. Republic & Another v. Kastellanos Theodossiou v.TheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C'44; Lardisv.TheRepublic,

(1967)3C.L.R. 64; HadjiconstantinouandOthersv. TheRepublic

(1973)3 C.L.R. 65; Petridesv. ThePublicServiceCommission

(1975)3G.L.R.284; Republicv. Haris

(1985)3C.L.R. 106; TheRepublic v.Roussos

(1979)3C.L.R. 1217; Moron v. TheRepublic. 1 R.S.CiC. 10; ' DecisionsNos.1371149and1431167oftheGreek.CouncilofState; Pavlides v.TheRepublic

(1967)3C.L.R.

1. Appeals and cross-appeal. Appealsandcross-appeal againstthejudgmentofaJudgeof theSupremeCourtofCyprus(Demetriades, J.)givenonthe24th June, Ϊ986(RevisionalJurisdiction CaseNo.400/84)*wherebythepromotionofinterestedparty M. Papaonisiforou tothepostof SeniorWelfare Officer was annulled.' A. VassiliadeSy forappellant inR.A.
2. , A. Markides, forappellant inR.A.
3. AS. Angelides, forrespondent. A. Panayiotou* forinterested party M. Neophytou. Cur. adv. vult. * Reportedin

(1986)3C.L.R. 1014. -2251 Republic & Another v.Kastellanos

(1988)A.LOIZOU P.:TheJudgmentof theCourtwillbedelivered byMr.JusticeStylianides. STYLIANIDES J.:These appeals,taken bytherespondents and theinterested party intherecourse,aredirected againstthe judgmentof aJudgeof thisCourtwherebyheannulledthepro- 5 motionoftheinterestedpartytothepostofSeniorWelfare Officer. Therespondent-applicantintherecoursefiledacross-appeal. FourpostsofSeniorWelfareOfficer, aspecializedpostunder section 35

(2)of thePublic ServiceLaw 33/67,werefilled by a 10 decisionoftheappellantCommissiondated 10thOctober,1981, witheffect 15thOctober, 1981.TheCommissionbythatdecision promotedtherespondent-applicantKastellanosandtheinterested partiesMalamoNeophytou,ChristakisPavlouandAntonisHadjichristou. 15 AppellantMyrianthiPapaonisiforou impugnedthe promotion ofKastellanosbymeansofRecourseNo.42/82.AJudgeofthis Courtdeclareditnullandvoidandofnoeffect on26thFebruary, 1983,onthe sole ground thattherewasarealprobability thatit wasfounded uponafactual misconceptionasthecountersigning 20 officer commentedinwritingontheconfidentialreportsoftheapplicantfor theyearsof 1978and 1979thatapplicant'sreporting officer waspronetooverestimatetheperformanceofhissubordinates. (See Papantoniou and Another v. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 64).) 25 Appeal was taken against thatfirst instancejudgmentwhich was dismissed by the Full Bench of the Court on 12th April, 1984. (See The PublicServiceCommission v. Papaonisiforou

(1984)3C.L.R. 370.) On8thMarch, 1983, theCommissionmadeknowntotheap- 30 plicant theresult of Recourse No.42/82 and informed himthat consequentially herevertedtohispreviouspostofWelfare Offi2252 3 C.L.R. ' Republic & Another v. Kastellanos Stylianides :j. cer,*Glass I.This'is consonant·totheprincipleof Administrative Law*that anannullingdecision'of the'Gourtwipes out'abinitiVthe sub'judice decision and no'revocative administrative actus're­ Λ τ quired.' ' - * " - ' < 7 V '"' : ' ' VlV. " 4iΤΗ./ Jn_,.;,,-t •*; ! 5 10 15 20 25 ι, ' ι ι -> , «r-i i i r »- • , ^ ' ; ι ·ι, - ^ r t i . j ,· υ r; ^ '-The Commission following'the dismissal.of the Revisional 1 Appeal proceeded tofillthepost whichbecame vacant'on.the ba­ sis of all thematerial before iton 10th October, 1981.Theycon­ sidered the candidates; after a first evaluation they reached the 1 conclusion thatthe selection was between'Kastellanos andPapaonisiforou. On 8th May, 1984, they^decided to promotePapaonisiforouJwt>*> u' ύ :s τ ι-ι4 . . . . . . ."( τ '£ On23rd May,*1984, counsel for theapplicant addressed a let­ ter totheChairmanof thePublic Service Commissioncomplain­ ing against theprocess followed for theselectionof theinterested party, submitting, mainly, that the Public Service Commission ought to have revoked its'decision of 10th October, il981, as a whole, i.e. the promotion of the three interested parties which was not challenged and was not annulled by the Court. In the meantime therecoursewasfiledwhereby,theapplicantprayed: (a)Declarationand/orjudgment of theCourtthatthedecision. of thePublic Service Commissionpublished in the Official Gazette of the 20th July,-1984, by means of which Myrianthi Papaonisiforou was promoted^retrospectively, as from 15th October, 1981;instead of the applicant, tothe post of SeniorWelfare Officer is nullandvoid. <b)Declaration of the Court'thatthe omission of the Public Service Commission torespond, examine and answer, to the letterof applicantof 23rd May, 1984,is null andvoid. 30 (c)Declaration and/orjudgment of theCourtthatthe promo­ tion with effect as from 15th October, 1981, of Malamo •Neopfiytou, Christakis Pavlou andAmonios HadjiChristou 4 tothepostof SeniorWelfare Officer is nullandvoid.„ . 2253 Stylianides J. Republic &Another v. Kastellanos

(1988)Thefirst instance Judgedismissedprayers (b)and (c)and annulledthedecision of thepromotion of theinterestedpartyPapaonisiforou on the ground that the Commission failed to interpret the relevant scheme of service regarding therequired qualifications;did notcarry out a sufficient inquiry astothenatureof the 5 qualifications possessed by theinterestedparty anddidnotdecide whether shepossessed thequalifications required by the scheme of service. The appellants challenged thispartof thejudgment andtherespondent bycross-appeal raised theissueson whichheeitherdid IQ not succeed orwereleft unresolved bythelearned trialJudge. Asin a revisional appeal the Court is seized with thecase ab initioweshall consider theissuesraised inthefollowing order: A.Whether theCommission interpreted theschemeof service and carried out a due inquiry as to thequalifications pos- 15 sessed by theinterested party. B.Whethercogentreasonsweregiven bytheCommission for disregarding the recommendations of theHead of theDepartment C.Whether the recourse against thepromotion of thethree in- 20 terested parties on 10th October, 1981, which were not challenged in thepast before theCourt,isoutoftime. D. Whether the Commission was bound to revoke the said promotions in view of the annulling decision in Recourse No.42/82and Revisional Jurisdiction AppealNo.306. 25 A.Possession byacandidateof thequalifications setoutin the relevant scheme of service is a prerequisite for his promotion. Thecompetence oftheCommission incaseofpromotion isregulated by section 44of the Public Service Lawof 1967 (Law No. 33/67).By paragraph (b)of subsection 1theCommission hasto 30 examine whether anofficer possessesthequalifications laiddown 2254 3 CiL.R.· Republic & Another-v. Kastellanos Stylianides J.; ' intheschemeof servicefor thatoffice. Thefact thatthepostisa specialized onedoes notaffect thispower andduty of the Com­ mission.Theconclusionof theDepartmentalBoardortheAdvi­ sory Board, as'the casemay be;regarding the qualificationsof 5 * theapplicants^ notbinding ontheCommission.The Commis­ sionhasastatutoryobligation toinquireanddecidefor itselfthis very serious matterwhich is asinequanontoany further step in theprocessof theexerciseofitsdiscretion.(SeeMichaelandAn­ other v.ThePublicService Commission

(1982)3C.L.R.726.) . 1 10 •'•· ' " . · • • - • ί. ,<· • . ι . j . ; . - , /· ' .-„ •• InMytides andAnotherv. Republic

(1983)3.C.L.R. 1096,at p. 1111 itwas said: 1 15 Ί .- Ϊ ' " M- . ' · · • . . . . . -. w. •• -j.i· , -;V»-,,-<.v.~ t * "The Commission has a statutory..duty to construe the • scheme of service, then^ascertain thequalifications of'each candidateasafactual situationandfinallytoapplytheischeme of serviceinthisfactual situationanddecidewhethera candi­ date is under the scheme of service eligible for promotion. Thesedutiescannotbeeitherusurpedby orleft to theDepartmentalBoard.Theultimate competenceandresponsibility rest onthe'Commission'."- • * • ·. *..;.*]" ·· < „ • - .· 20 In'thepresentcaseparagraphs(l) (a)and

(2)of theschemeof .^ servicefor thepostinquestionprovided as follows: "

(1)(α) Δίπλωμα τριετούς Φοιτήσεως εις Ανωτέραν ΣχολήνΚοινωνικήςΕργασίας/Ευημερίαςή άλλοισότιμον δίπλωμα επαγγελματικής καταρτίσεως εις τηνΚοινωνί­ ας κήνΕργασίαν/Ευημερίανκαιτριετής-τουλάχιστονυπηρε-. σίαειςτηνθέσινΛειτουργού.Ευημερίας· *-^'.r .-.· ?' Λ

(2)Ειδικήεκπαίδεΰσιςή^μετεκπαίδευσιςειςτην.<Κοινω- • νικήν Εργασίαν/Ευημερίανήτιςναπεριλαμβάνη φοίτησιν.. εις^ανεγνωρισμένον εκπαιδεύτικόν.ίδρυμα καιαπόκτησιν/ -•σχετικούδιπλωματος/πιοτόποιητικού.* . 35 ("

(1)(a) Adiplomaof athreeyearscourse inaHigh School of Social Work/Welfare orotherequivalent diplomaof vocationaltraining in theSocial Work/Welfare and atleast three 2255 Strylianides J. Republic &Another v. Kastellanos

(1988)yearsserviceinthepostofWelfare Officer,

(2)Special or post-graduate training in Social Work/ Welfare whichwillincludestudiesinarecognizededucational institutionandpossessionofarelevantdiploma/certificate. 5 ") TheCommission,outof anumberof candidates,preselected theappellantandtherespondentinthisappealandproceededto a comparisonbetween them.Inthecourseof suchcomparisonitis recordedintherelevantminutes: \Q "Από πλευράςπροσόντωνκατά τον ουσιώδηχρόνοη Παπαονησιφόρου διέθετε Diplomaof the Schoolof Social Welfare Studies, Orlinda Child's Pierce College of Athens, δηλαδήειδικήκατάρτισηπουαπόκτησεύστερααπό σπου­ δέςτριώνετών,..." 15 AndinEnglishitreads: \ ("Fromtheaspectof qualifications atthematerialtime Pa­ paonisiforou possessed a Diploma of the School of Social Welfare Studies, Orlinda Child's Pierce College of Athens, namely special training which she acquired after threeyears 20 studies, ...") As stated inPhotos Photiades & Co. v.The Republic ofCy­ prus,through theMinisterofFinance, 1964 C.L.R. 102,anadrmnistrativeauthorityhasadutytomakethereasonably necessary inquiry for thepurposes of ascertaining thecorrectfacts towhich 25 therelevant legislation is tobeapplied.Theascertainmentofthe truefactual situationisoneof thefour necessary stepsinthe mak­ ing of an administrative act,asfollows: thestudy and,if neces­ sary, interpretation of therelevantlegalprovisions;ascertainment of thecorrectfacts; applicationof thelaw tothefacts; anddeci- 30 siononthecourseofaction. Counselfor theappellants submitted that thequalifications of 2256 3 C.L.R. Republic & another v. Kastellanos Stylianides J. thepromoteesatisfied bothrequirementsof the schemeof service hereinabove quoted.' Itis thecontentionof counselfor therespondent-applicantthat thequalifications of the appellant-interestedparty satisfied either the qualification under paragraph (a) or the qualification under y paragraph

(2)but notboth.Furthermore, theCommission failed x in itsduty toaddress its'mindtotheissueof qualification andcar­ J ry outadueorany inquiry. ' , . ' , '' J l It is(well settled that this Cout is exercising only a revisional H 1 001 jurisoictipn anddoes notdecide whether aparticular qualificationJ is satisfied ornot.Theobject andscope of the revisional'jurisdiction is thejudicial controlof theexercise of thepower or thead­ ministration andthelegality of theadministrativeactchallenged^ * Having regard to the facts and circumstances in the present 1 5 ' case we share theview of trie first instance Judge thatthe Com­ mission failed tointerprettrierelevant schemeof serviceregard- ~ ing thisparticularquestion andfailed tocarry outthe sufficiently necessary inquiry intothequalifications possessed by theinterest- ' edparty;itexercised its discretionin adefective manner,itsdeci- ' 20 sion regarding thepromotionof the interested party is, therefore, wrong"in law andin excess and/orin abuse of power's. Themin­ utes of tlie Commission indicate that the process was defective and tHaut did not(perform its'duty as set out in theCase-Law of this Courton the matterof the qualifications required underthe ~, schemeof servicewith regard tocandidatePapaonisiforou.'*' i B.'Therecomrnendations'bftheHeadof theDepartment were always consideredamostvital considerationnotlightly tobedis- " regarded. TheHeadof theDepartmentis'in a position toappre%ί ciatethedemandsof thepost tobefilledandthesuitability of the ' v candidates todischarge theduties of thepost. ' \ ΟΛ Section 44

(3)of thePublic Service Law, 1967 (Law No. 33/ 67) reads as follows: . , 2257. Stylianides J. Republic & Another v. Kastellanos

(1988)"

(3)In making a promotion, the Commission shall have dueregard totheannual confidential reportsonthe candidates and.torecommendations made in this respect by theHead of Department inwhich thevacancyexists." It is well established that thePublic ServiceCommission has 5 topay heed tosuch recommendations andiftheydecidetodisregard them they have togive reasons for doing so. (See Michael Theodosiou and The Republic (Public Service Commission), 2 R.S.C.C. 44;Andreas Lardis v. Republic (Public Service Commission)

(1967)3 C.L.R. 64;CostasHadjiconstantinou and Oth- JQ ers v. Republic (Public Service Commission)

(1973)3 C.L.R. 65;Emanouel Petrides v.The PublicServiceCommission

(1975)3 C.L.R. 284;Republic v.Haris

(1985)3C.L.R. 106.) Therecommendationsof aDepartmentalHeadcarry considerable weight because he is in a unique position toevaluate in the 15 correct perspective the competing merits of the candidates in terms of ability,knowledge andexperience of thebeholderonthe one hand, and appreciate the needsof thepost tobefilledon the other. In the present case, theHead of theDepartment, the Director 20 oftheSocialWelfare Services,madeveryreasonedrecommendationscomparing theirrespective meritsanddemeritsonaconsideration of allthefactorsrelevant andconcluded byrecommending Kastellanos as the most suitable for this promotion post. The Commission, if they decided not to act in accordance with such 25 recommendations, they would have to give specific reasons for sodisregarding them. Suchreasons aresubject toscrutiny by the Administrative Court. (SeeRepublic v.Haris (supra)).The Commission disregarded the aforesaid recommendations of the Head of theDepartment andpreferred Papaonisiforou instead of there- -50 spondent. The Commission referred to the confidential reports, thequalifications and the seniority of thetwocandidates.Kastellanosisslightly seniortotheappellant.Theirmerits,sofar asreflected intheconfidential reports,areequal.Theconfidential reports give partly a description of the merits of candidates. The 35 2258 3 C.L.R. Republic & Another v. Kastellanos Stylianides J. morerecentonesfor bothare: I , Appellant " Γ 1979: Excellent (12-0-0) : 1980: ' Excellent (12-0-0) 5 Respondent Excellent (12-0-0) Excellent (10-2-0) InTheRepublic v. Roussos

(1979)3 C.L.R. 1217 it was said at p. 1224: "... we should stress that what really mattersis the general picturepresented by theoverall grade in thereport, ontheba­ sis of theaggregate effect of theevaluations of apublic officer regarding particularratable items,andnotthearithmetical for­ mulaof how many times as regards suchitems acandidatehad been rated as 'excellent' or 'very good', or 'good' etc." 10 "And further down: 15 ".I. it must not be lost sight of that it is dangerous toerhbark onthese numericalcomparisons independendyof thena, tureof theitems inrespect of which anofficer is ratedas 'ex­ cellent' or 'very good* since' such items do differ in ,significance dependingonthequalities towhich theyrelate." TheCommissionconcluded: 20 "Η Επιτροπή, έχονταςυπόψητα πιο πάνω, έκρινε ότι δεν ήταν δυνατό ναυιοθετήσειτη σύστασητουΔιευθυντή για προαγωγήτουΚαοτελλάνου,διότιηΠαπαονησιφόρου υπερείχε γενικάαυτούκατά τον ουσιώδηχρόνο και ήταν πιο κατάλληλη για προαγωγήστη θέση Ανώτερου Λει­ τουργού Ευημερίας." 25 : ' ("The Commission, having regard to the above, decided that it was notpossible to adopt therecommendationsof the Director for promotion of Kastellanos, because Papaonisiforou in general was superior atthematerial timeandwas moresuit­ able for promotion tothepostof SeniorWelfare Officer.") ' Ι 2259 Τ Stylianides J. Republic & Another v. Kastellanos

(1988)Having regard tothe material before theCommission and the minutes of its meeting, weareof theview that nocogent reasons were given for their departure from therecommendations of the Director. Their reason is very general and inconsistent with the material before them. Thus, they exercised their discretion in a defective manner, contrary toLaw andinexcessof power. 5 C.It was submitted bycounsel for therespondent that theperiod of time within which therecourse has tobe filed starts running from the date that a person acquires a legitimate interest to makearecourse. 1Q Paragraph 3 of Article 146 of the Constitution reads as follows: "

1. Such arecourse shall bemade within seventy-five days of the date when the decision or act was published or, if not published and in the case of anomission, when itcame tothe 15 knowledgeof theperson making therecourse." Thisisamandatory provision and hastobegiven effect inthe public interest in all cases. Such view is in accordance with the interpretation of analogousprovisionsgiven byadministrative tribunals in anumber of European countries andisalso theview of 20 authoritative writers on this subject. It is the view taken by this Court in this country ever since theintroduction of theAdministrative Law by Article 146of theConstitution. (SeeJohn Moran and TheRepublic (Attorney-General andMinister ofInterior), 1 R.S.C.C. 10.) The decision of 10th October, 1981,for promotion of the three interested parties waspublished intheOfficial Gazetteof theRepublic on 13th November, 1981.Therespondent wasone of the promotees whose promotion, however, was annulled by the SupremeCourt asaforesaid. Itwassubmitted byhiscounsel thatthe 39 period of seventy-five days startsrunning asfromthefinaldecision of the Supreme Court on 12th April, 1984.We do not subscribe to this view. Paragraph 2of Article 146, which requires 2260 25 3 C.L.R. - e Republic & Another v. Kastellanos > '«-
2. >" . Λ* r .·.-. Stylianides J. . - . , . : . • • ) . - ,.· ,'.:..ι.Α thepossession of legitimate interest as aprerequisite for themak­ ing of arecourse,is notconnectedwitfi pafa'graph 3.Paragraph 3 is an independent-proceduralprovision of public policy. Hadit beenptherwise.Daragraph 3 as totime,would have been derogated and unnecessary uncertainty would have been.created in the administration with allevil consequences. * ' • .' '. > < . ·'.· , . ·') , V'-r,„ ι Μ •*-· ,c ,D. Counsel for therespondent submitted that,as thedecision of theCommission topromotehim was annulledby theSupreme Court ontheground thatintheconfidential reportsof Papaonisiforou fori 977,-1978 thecountersigning officer noted thatthere­ porting officer was generally too'generous,theCommission a'sa matter,of properadministrationandonthe'groundof theprinciple of.equality snould have revoked thepromotionof theotherthree officersrwho were promotedpn,thetsameday, as theycompnsein effect oneactwhich was"tainted in whole with thisillegality. 'l The Court ascertains and.determines under Article'l46.4 the lO •r 2Λ '' '" ι ) ' ' '' Γ- * j legality of aparticular.actwhich.is impugned.Thedecision of the Administrative Courtis binding onall'courts andall organs orau­ thorities in the Republic and shall.be given.effect to and acted upon by the organ or authority or person concerned.(Seepara­ graph 5of Article 146 'andArticle 148^' ' ' *; ·'' ' " ' ' Itis theactualdecision in theparticularrecourse which is.binding.Thisis quiteclear if onereadstogetherparagraphs 4 and5of Article 146,which read as follows: • 25 ' ' '.' . ." > "4.Upon such arecourse theCourtmay,by its decision">' (a)confirm, either in whole orin pan,such decision oract oromission;or 1 * ,1 • ' (b)declare,either in'whole or'in'part,such decision oract " tobenull andvoid andof noeffect whatsoever; or 30 .(c) declare thatsuch'omission, either in whole or inpart, ought nottohave been madeandthatwhatever has beenomit2261 Stylianides J. Republic & Another v. Kastellanos

(1988)ted should have been performed.

1. Any decision given under paragraph 4 of this Article shall be binding on all courts and all organs orauthorities in theRepublic andshall begiveneffect toandacteduponby the organ orauthority orperson concerned." 5 In Case No. 1371/49theGreek Council of Stateannulled the appointmentof theHeadof the4thsurgery clinicof ahospitalon the ground that the advertisement of theposts of the head of all theclinics was faulty andillegaland theprocess of thefilling of the post that followed was tainted and illegal. The Executive 10 Committeeof theHospital did notrevoketheappointmentof the Headsof theotherclinics. Incase No.2015/50(Decisions of the Greek Council of State, 1950, B,p. 428) theGreek Council of State held that the Administration was not bound torevokethe actslof the appointment of theHeads of theother clinics which γ$ wereeffected with the same act,on theground of annulmentof thesubjudice decision inCase No.1371/
2. In Case No. 1431/67theGreekCouncilof Statedecidedthat, after theannulmentfor lack of sufficient reasoning of thepromo­ tion of theapplicant,theAdministration was boundtocarry outa 20 new comparison of theapplicant with his colleagues whose pro­ motionwas annulled,butnottoproceed torevokethe promotion of other civil servants since there was no annulling decision. (See,also, Cases 675/68and1567/68.) InTheocharopoulou "TheConsequences of theAnnulment of theAdministrative Act"

(1980)atp. 176 weread: 25 "Πράγματι,παρατηρείται ιδία εις τονδημοσιουπαλληλικόνχώρον,ότιη ακύρωσιςπαραλείψεωςπ.χ.προςπροαγωγήν του προσφεύγοντος, εκδηλωθείσης δια πράξεως προαγωγών άλλων υπαλλήλων, έχει πολλάκις ως συνέ- 30 πειαν το ότι η Διοίκησις υποχρεούται όπως επιληφθήεκ νέου του ζητήματοςτης προαγωγής τουπροσφυγόντος, κρίνουσα τούτον εκ νέου προς προαγωγήνεν συγκρίσει 2262 3 C.L.R. , ,\ 5 Ι in .1 5 Republic & Another v. Kastellanos • . ,f ·. · , · ·*:*ι-:·' Stylianides J. '• ' - ν όμως όχι προς όλους τους προαχθέντας,αλλά μόνον εν t συγκρίσει προςεκείνους εκτωνπροάχθέντών η πρόκρισις των οποίων έναντιτουπροσφυγόντος εκρίθηυπότουΣτΕ1 r ωςπρο'ίόνμηνομίμου ασκήσεως τηςδιακριτικής εξουσίας τηςΔιοικήσεως, ήως αναιτιολόγητος.Επανερχόμενη6εεκ νέουηΔιοίκησις υποχρεούται ναανακαλέσητην προαγωγήν τινός των προαχθέντων εξ εκείνων μετά των οποίων συνεκρίθη ο προσφεύγων και ευρέθη υπερτερών και όχι άλλου τινός ήόλων των αναφερομένων εις την εν λόγω πράξινπροαγωγών.Δηλαδή,ηΔιοίκησις υποχρεούται εν προκειμένω ναπροβήεις την σύγκρισιν μόνον μεταξύτου αιτούντοςκαιτουυπαλλήλουτουοποίουηκυρώθηηπροα­ γωγή ως αναιτιολόγητος και όχι νασυγκρίνη αυτόνπρος ετέρους συναδέλφους." We adopt thispassage. Withregardtotheprinciple of equalitywe areof theview that itis notviolated. 20 25 Itshould be borne inmindthatcertainty of thelaw andjustice areessentialfeatures of therule of law. Certainty andjusticeare, also, essential elements or proper administration. (SeeByron Pavlides v.Republic (CommissionerofIncome TaxandAnother)

(1967)3 C.L.R. 217). The Public Service Commission was not bound torevokethe promotion of thethreeinterested parties. Ithas thepowerofrevocation,which should notbeexercisedcontrary totheestablished principles of Administrative Law. Inthepresent casethecomplaint of counsel for the respondent is notsustained by this Court.TheCommission acted within the bounds of its authority. •3 0 -7 Inview of all theforegoing, theappeals andcross-appeal are dismissed. Thesubjudicedecision of thepromotion of Myrianthi Papaonisiforou, published in the Official Gazette on 20th July, 2263 Stylianides J. Republic & Another v. Kastellanos

(1988)1984,isdeclared null and void andof noeffect under paragraph 4(b)ofArticle 146. Let there benoorderas tocosts. Appealsandcross-appeal dismissed.No orderasto costs. 2264 5