(1988)1988November26 [A.LOIZOU,P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION 1.PANAYIOTISANTONIOU, 2.XENIS IOANNOU, Applicants, v. THEIMPROVEMENTBOARDOFSOTIRA, Respondent. (CaseNo.422/86). LocalAuthorities—Appointments—ImprovementBoards—Written examinations—A choiceofmeansofforminganopinion—Presumptionofregularity—How it operatesas regards suchexaminations—Papers knownto whomtheybelonged,sheetsnotinitialled,paperneithersignedatthebottomnorsealedbyinvigilator—Applicantsfailedtoproveirregularity,fa- 5 vouritismorimproperconduct. LocalAuthorities—Appointments—ImprovementBoards—Interviews,performance at—Norecordofimpressions—Votingassoonasinterviewswere over—Judgingfromtheresult, itisobviousthatsuchimpressionwasinfavourofinterestedparty. 10 LocalAuthorities—Appointments—Improvement Boards—Qualifications— Additional,butnotreferredtoasanadvantageintheschemeofservice— Donotconstituteanadvantage. Generalprinciples of administrativelaw—Presumption ofRegularity— Ascertainmentoffacts. 15 LocalAuthorities—Appointments—ImprovementBoards—Written examinations—Resultsnotconsistentwithmarksinschool-leavingcertificates—A fact thatdoesnotprovelackofimpartiality. 2312 3 C.LJL Antoniou v. Impr. Board Sotira NaturalJusttce-rBias—Appointment byLocalAuthonties—Participation of Chairmanof Village Commission—Application of.interestedpartymen tionedhimas oneof therefereesfor suchparty—Whethersuchfact estab lishesby itselfbias or undue influence—Questiondeterminedinthenega tive. i" Thefaceof thiscasesufficiently appear inthejudgmentoftheCourt . Recoursedismissed. No orderas to costs. Casesreferredto: · Michanikosand Anotherv.TheRepublic
(1916)3C.LR. 237; . PapalUsv. TheRepublic
(1970)3CMJt.424; . · ., C ·' - / Lambrakisv. TheRepublic
(1973)3OLA. 29; ' . ' • , · . . . · : . . ' · " Ekkeshisv. TheRepublic
(1975)3C I A . 548; • HadjtVassMouandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1974)3CLR. 130;r»• " Korai andAnother v.CM.C.
(1973)3C.L.R.546; Kolokotronis v. TheRepublic
(1980)3CUR.418. Recourse. r ' Recourseagainstthedecisionof therespondenttoappoint the interestedpartytothepostofInspector. • . » A.S.Angelides, forύ&applicant Ε.Odysseos, fortherespondent * N.jPoiddstfortheinterestedparty ; • ' ' * Cur. adv. vult. 3313 Antoniouv.Impr.BoardSotira
(1988)A.LOIZOU P.read thefollowingjudgment.Therespondent Boarddecidedtofill thevacantpostofInspectorandforthatpurposeitinvitedapplicationsbypostingnoticestothateffect inconspicuous places in the village. It further decided torequire the candidatestositforwrittenexaminationswiththetaskofwhichit 5 instructedtheDistrictOfficer whoisalsotheChairmanoftherespondent Board and that the best first five of the candidates shouldbeinvitedtooralexaminationsandpersonalinterviewsby theChairmanandthemembersoftherespondentBoard. Therewerein all sixapplicants amongwhomthetwoappli- JQ cantsandtheinterestedparty. Thecandidatessatfortheirexaminationsandtheirgradingwas asfollows: InterestedpartyAntonisKyriakou58marksoutofahundred. Applicant 1,PanayiotisAntoniou 55.5outof ahundred.Appli- 15 cant 2,XenisIoannou 51.5outof hundred.Theremainingthree candidatesweregivenmuchlowermarks. Allthecandidatesweretheninvitedfororalexaminationsand interviews,butoneofthemdidnotattend.After theseinterviews andexaminationstherespondentBoardproceededtovoteforthe 20 selection and appointment ofthe bestcandidate.Theinterested partysecuredfourvotesofthesixpresentmembersoftheCouncil,andapplicantPanayiotisAntonioutwovotes.TheChairman oftherespondentBoard,whochairedthemeetingdidnotvoteon accountoftheresultof thevoting.Inconsequenceof theabove 25 theinterestedpartywasappointedtothepostofInspector. Asagainstthisdecisionthetwoapplicantsfiled thepresentrecourse.Allrelevantdocuments,minutes,havebeenproducedas exhibitsandfor thesakeofbrevityIneedrefertotheircontents verbatim. Thefirst groundoflawreliedupononbehalfoftheapplicant isthatthemannerwithwhichthewrittenexaminationswerecon2314 30 3 C.L.R. 5 Antoniou v. Impr. Board Sotira A. Loizou P. ductedandthe.examinationofthepaperscreateastowhetherthe markingwasobjective,fair,andreflectingthemeritoftheexaminees.This is based on the fact thatthepapers were known to whomtheybelongedasnoprovisionwasmadetohavenumbers insteadofthenamesofthecandidatesonthemandthateachsheet wasnotinitialled norwaseachpaper signedat thebottom,nor weretheysealedbytheinvigilator. ThesubjectsoftheexaminationsweresetbytheDistrict Officerand theyweregiven in sealedenvelopestotheSecretaryof 10 therespondentBoard,anofficer intheoffice oftheDistrict Officerwhowasentrusted withthedutytohandout thesubjects to thecandidatesandtheinvigilationoftheexaminations. 15 20 25 Thepaperswerethencollected bythe said Secretary,examined andmarked byhimonthe samedayandon the following dayhetransmitteddiemtotheDistrictOfficer forthefinalcheckingandmarking. Theresults of thewrittenexaminations were placed before therespondent Board, at its meeting of the 14th April 1986forwhich,thoughitdidnotfindtheresultsverysatisfactory, itdecided toselectthe-bestfor appointment andin fact theinterestedpartywassoselectedandappointedtothepostof InspectoroftherespondentBoard.Withthisdecisiontwomembersdisagreedandsuggestedthatthefirstthreeofthecandidates shouldsitforfurther writtenexaminationsas,accordingtotheir allegationthepapershadnotbeensealedattheconclusionofthe examination. TherespondentBoardbymajorityproceededwiththecompletionof theprocesswhich ithadlaiddown atitsmeeting ofthe 27thDecember 1986." - 30 35 Onthetotalityofthecircumstancestheapplicantsonwhomthe burdenofproof lieshavefailed toprovethattherehasbeenany irregularity,favouritism orimproperconductonthepartofanybody regarding these examinations, the suggestion of learned counsel for theapplicantsregarding theproposed byhim safeguardsfortheconductoftheexaminationsmaynotevenbeeffec2315 A. Loizou P. Antoniou v.Impr.Board Sotira
(1988)tive ifone.considered thatthereweresofewcandidatesandonly oneinvigilatorwhomightnoticetheirhand-writing. Thereexiststhepresumption ofregularityandthecorrectascertainmentbytheadministrationoftherelevantfactsunlessthe contraryisprovedbytheapplicant.(SeeMichanikosandAnother 5 v.TheRepublic
(1976)3CL.R. 237;Papallis v.TheRepublic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 424; Lambrakis v. The Republic
(1973)·3 C.L.R.29.Moreoverreference maybemadetothecaseofEkkeshisv.TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.548atp.556inwhichthe followingisstated: 10 "Thepresumption thatanadministrativeactisreached after acorrectascertainmentofrelevantfacts,hasbeenacceptedby thisCourt,and,inthatrespect,relevantarethedecisionsinthe caseofKoukoullis andothers andtheRepublic* 3R.S.C.C. 134,Papallis v. TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R.424at429. 1 5 Kousoulidesv.Republic
(1967)3C.L.R.438at447andParaskevasLordosandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1974)3C.L.R. 447at457,whereitwasheldthat,'intheabsenceofanyconcreteevidencetothateffect andbecauseofthepresumptionof regularity-omniapreasumunturriteesseact-theconclusion «n tobedrawn,inthecircumstanceswasthattherewasaproper ascertainmentoffacts'". Apartfromthemereallegationscontainedincounsel'saddress nothinghasbeen adduced toshow/establish thatthesetwo officialsconductedinadishonestwaytheexaminationsinquestion. _ Furthermore'the correspondence betweencounselfor theapplicantsandtherespondentBoarddoesnottakethecaseanyfurther.ThetwomembersoftheBoardwhodisagreedwiththedecisionoftherespondentBoardhadtheirviewsrecordedandthisis consistentwiththecaselawofthis(Courtandthegeneralprinci- ^ pies of Administrative Law. (See Conclusions of the Greek CouncilofState)(1929-1959)p.113. OnthequestionofwrittenexaminationsIwouldliketoreferto 2316 3 C.L.R. Antoniou v.Impr.Board Sotira A.LoizouP. thecaseofMajiVassiliouandOthers v.TheRepublic
(1974)3 CX.R. 130whereatp. 1391said,thefollowing: 5 10 1S "Ifully subscribe tothisapproach and Iwishonly toadd -thatwrittenexaminationsconstitute,generallyspeaking,afair procedureforascertainingtheparticularknowledgeandabili• tiesofcandidatesinrelationto.the subject onwhichtheyare examined.Nodoubt,theyareneitherimposed;norprohibited bytheLaw,theassignmentoftheirholdingstotheDirectorof theDepartmentconcernedasapersonhavingexpertknowledge intheparticularsubjectwhichtheexaminationsweretocover, doesnotamounttotherespondentCommissionabdicatingits jurisdiction.Inmyview,theyconstituteachoiceofmeansof forming theirjudgment on the matter under consideration. (See, Stassinopoulos Law of Administrative Act, 1975,p. 333).:· Afurther argumentadvancedinsupportofthecontentionthat theexaminationswerenotheldinanimpartialmannerwasthat themarksintheschool-leavingcertificateof theinterestedparty werelowerthanthoseoftheapplicantsandthereforehecouldnot ~* makeabetterperformance attheseexaminations.Idonotthink thatthiscarriesthecaseoftheapplicantsanyfurther, norcanIgo asmuchastosaythatbecauseofthat,theexaminationswerenot carriedoutinanhonestandimpartialmanner. Counselfortheapplicantcomplainedalsothattherespondent 2<r Boarddidnottakeintoconsiderationtheadditional qualifications ofthepartiesbutonthispointitissufficient tosaythatadditional qualificationsdonotconstituteanadvantageiftheyarenotspecificallyprovidedforindieSchemeofService.(SeeKoraiandAnotherv.CB.C.
(1973)3 C I A . 546;Kolokotronis v.TheRepublic
(1980)3CUR. 418.) Anothergroundoflawrelieduponbytheapplicantsisthatat themeetingoftherespondentBoardtherewaspresentandtook partinthedeliberationstheChairmanofthevillageCommitteeof Soterawhoisanexofficio memberoftherespondentBoard,and 2317 A. Loizou P. Antoniou v. Impr. Board Sotira
(1988)who happened tohavebeen mentionedin theapplication ofthe interestedpartyasoneoftherefereesclaimingthatthereference deprivedhimofanyobjectivityinthematter.Thereisnothingto suggest in the minutes that because of that reference the said ChairmanofthevillageCommitteewhovotedatthesecretballot 5 heldfortheselectionofthemostsuitablecandidate,washimself influenced, orhedidinfluence anybodyinfavouroftheinterestedparty,norcanthatfactoraloneestablishbias. OntheotherhandlearnedcounselfortherespondentBoardreferred to the relationship that existed between two dissenting *" memberswiththeapplicantsinordertoshowthewellknownsituation inCyprus andespeciallyin villageswhereeverybody is knowntoeverybody. Thelastgroundoflawreliedupononbehalfoftheapplicants isthattheactsuffers becauseithasnoreasoningandthatthe re- 15 suitsoftheoralinterviewhavenotbeenrecordedindetailinthe minutesoftheBoard.Ineedhardlydealwiththequestionofreasoning which is apparent from the minutes of the respondent Board andduly supplemented bytherelevant material thatthe Boardhadbeforeit.Asregardstheinterviewsandoralexamina- 20 tions,theywereheldwhentherespondentBoardwasholdingits meetingatwhichthesub-judicedecisionwastakenandtherewas hardlyanyneedforarecordoftheimpressionscreatedtherebyto bekept Judgingfrom theresultitseemsthatsuch impressions from theinterviewsandtheoralexaminationswentinfavour of 25 theinterestedparty. On thetotalityof thematerial before meIhavecometothe conclusionthattheapplicantshavefailed toprovestrikingsuperiorityasagainsttheinterestedpartyandorestablishanyabuseor excessofpower.TherespondentBoardexerciseditsdiscretion properlyandthesubjudicedecisionwasreasonablyopentoit Foralltheabovereasons therecourseisdismissed butinthe circumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs. " 2318