clr/1988/1988_3_353.pdf

(1988)toholdinterviewsororalorwritten examinations. PuolicOfficers—Promotions—Departmental Committees—5 vacancies—Four indidates qualified underpara. 1oftheScheme,and theremainingseven ,dernote (J)—Whetherpossiblefor Committeetorecommendsimultanei ,slyall11candidates. 5 TherespondentCommission hadtofill5vacancies tothepostof Senior Tr. nsport Controller 2nd Grade. Having filled the first 4 vacancies, they pro ecded with theselection inrespect of theremaining postamong candidates, who were qualified under note

(1)to the scheme of service. In this respect, the Commission adopted the recommendation of the Head of the Department toconfine theselection amongcandidates Shicngasand Athanasiou. 10 Shicngas wasa year senior to Athanassiou and wasbetterqualified, but hisadditional qualification wasnot regarded by theschemeof serviceasan advantage. Both had excellent reports for the last4years,but thecomments 15 for Athanassiou were belter. Athanassiou was recommended by the Head ofthe Department. The present recourses challenge the validity of theselection of Athanassiou. Applicants Stylianou and Efrem argued that some of their confidential reports wereprepared by officers, whoaspired for promotion tothe subjudicepost,and ought, therefore, tobe ignored. 20 Applicant incase 162/84complained (a)Theinformation which wasbefore the Departmental Committee was insufficient and, therefore, by not holding interviews or oral or written examinations, it failed tocarry out its task in examining and evaluating thecandidates'ability and worth,and (b) 25 The report sent to the Commission was not in accordance with theprovisions of the regulations in that isshould recommend not less than twoand not more than four candidates for the fifth post and not, as it had done, eleven candidates forallfivevacancies. Held,dismissing therecourses:

(1)Inthe lightofthefacts placed before 30 theCourt atthe timeof preparation of thecomplained of reports for Stylianou and Efrem thereexisted noreal competition between eitherofthemand the respective reporting officer. Indeed, the reporting officer in each case held at a time a post superior to that held by the respective party and the scheme of service for thesubjudicepost wasprepared after completion of the last complained of report and, in any event, theapplicants werequali- 35 354 3 C.L.R. Stylianou & Others v. Republic Tiedundernote

(1)to thescheme,whereas therespective reporting officer was normally qualified underthesaid scheme. 5 10 15

(2)Applicant Stylianou is senior by a year to the interested party, but the latter was recommended for promotion,was superior in merit and had betterqualifications. Applicant, therefore, failed tomakeoutacase of strik­ ing superiority.

(3)Applicant Shiengas hadbetterqualifications totheinterestedparty (a University Diploma).Such diploma, however, was notconsidered an ad­ vantage. Shiengas was, also, senior to the interested parly by one year. Though they both had excellent reports for thelast 4 years, thereportson' Athanassiou had belter comments.Athanassiou was recommended by the Head of theDepartment. Inthelight of these facts applicant failed to make outacase of striking superiority.

(4)Applicant incase 162/84 failed tomakeoutacase of striking supcriority.

(5)The fact thattheHeadof the Department,in making hisrecommen­ dations,referred toonly two of thecandidates is notin thecircumstancesa ground of annulment (Constantinou v.Public ServiceCommission

(1980)3 C.L.R. 551 adopted). 20 25

(6)It was notobligatory, under the regulations, on the Committee, to hold interviews ororal orwritten examinations if itwas, onthematerial be­ fore it,satisfied thatall candidates should have been recommendedfor pro­ motion. Since,therefore, thevacant posts in thepresent case were five and all eleven candidates were eligible for promotioneither underparagraph

(1)of thescheme of service or underNote

(1)thereof, itwas not improper for the Committeetorecommend ail of them.Inany event, theirregularity, if any, was nota materialone. Recoursesdismissed. No order as tocosts. οΛ Casesreferred to: Bagdades v. CentralBank of Cyprus

(1973)3C.L.R. 417; Cleanthous v.Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R. 320; Evangelou v.Republic

(1965)3C.L.R. 292; 355

(1988)Stylianou & Others v. Republic Makrides v.Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 750; Constantinou v.Public ServiceCommission

(1980)3 C.L.R. 551; Savoulla v.Republic

(1973)3 C.L.R. 706; Christou v. Republic

(1980)3 C.L R. 437; 5 Mi. ellidou v.Republic

(1981)3 C.L.R. 461; Agrotis v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus

(1981)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondent to promote the interested party to thepost of Senior Transport Controller2nd Grade in theDepartmentof InlandTransport inpreference and in- ι Q stead of the applicants. E.Lemonaris, for applicant in Case No. 17/
2. N.Panayiotou, for applicant in Case No. 156/
3. A. Xenophontos, for applicant in Case No. 162/
4. G. Constantinou -Erotocritou (Mrs.), Senior Counsel of the Republic, for therespondent. 15 Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J. read thefollowing judgment. By means of the present recourses, which were heard together in view of their nature, the applicants challenge the decision of the respondent Public Service Commission topromote,instead of them, interest­ ed party Antonis Athanassiou to the post of Senior Transport Controller 2nd Grade,in theDepartmentof Inland Transport, as from the 15th November,
5. 356 ^ 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Stylianou &Others v. Republic Demetriades J. As thepost of SeniorTransport Controller 2ndGradeis apro­ motion post, there was followed the procedure envisaged by means of section 36 of thePublic ServiceLaws, 1967 to 1983, andaDepartmental Committee was instituted for thepurpose of recommending to therespondent Commission those candidates eligiblefor promotion. Onthe2ndJuly, 1983, theDepartmental Committee forward­ ed to the Public Service Commission their report in which all elevencandidates for thefive vacant postsof Transport Controller 2ndGradewererecommended for promotion. Therespondent Commission metonthe7th November, 1983, inthepresence of theDirectorof theDepartmentof InlandTrans­ port, who expressed his views and made his recommendations about thecandidates. 15 20 25 30 Thematerial partof thesubjudicedecision reads as follows: "Η Επιτροπήεξέτασε ταουσιώδη στοιχεία απότοΦάκελλοΠλήρωσηςτηςθέσης,καθώςκαιαπότουςΠροσωπι­ κούςΦακέλλουςκαιτις Εμπιστευτικές Εκθέσεις τωνυπο­ ψηφίων και έλαβε υπόψη τα πορίσματατης Τμηματικής Επιτροπής και τις κρίσεις και συστάσεις του Διευθυντή τουΤμήματοςΧερσαίων Μεταφορών. Η Επιτροπή,λαμβάνονταςυπόψητιςυψηλές Εμπιστευ­ τικέςΕκθέσεις, τηναρχαιότητακαιταπροσόντατων Παππαρίδη,Φοινικαρίδη,Κυθραιώτηκαι Ιακώβου,οι οποίοι είναι οι μόνοι πουκατέχουν ταπροσόντα που απαιτούν­ ται απότην παράγραφο

(1)του ΣχεδίουΥπηρεσίας, έκρι­ νε ότι αυτοί είναι κατάλληλοι για προαγωγήκαι αποφά­ σισενατουςπροαγάγειστις τέσσερεις πρώτες θέσεις. Για την πέμπτη θέση η επιλογή έγινε ανάμεσα στους υποψηφίουςπουδικαιούνταιναδιεκδικήσουντηθέση με βάσητη Σημείωση

(1)του ΣχεδίουΥπηρεσίας, οι οποίοι συστήθηκαναπότηνΤμηματικήΕπιτροπή. 357 Demetriades J. Stylianou v. Others v. Republic

(1988)Η Επιτροπή,αφού έκαμε γενική σύγκριση μεταξύ των υποψηφίων αυτών, σημείωσε ότι οι Αθανασίου και Σιέ­ γκας έχουν τις υψηλότερες Εμπιστευτικές Εκθέσεις ('Εξαίρετοι' τα τρία τελευταία χρόνια) και αφού έλαβε υπόψη επίσης ταπροσόντα καιτην αρχαιότητα,υιοθέτησε τη σύσταση τουΔιευθυντή όπως ηεπιλογή γιατηνπέμπτη θέσηγίνει ανάμεσαστους δύοαυτούς υπαλλήλους. 5 Η Επιτροπή έλαβε υπόψη ότι και οι δύο κατέχουν τη θέση Ελεγκτή Μεταφορών, 1ηςΤάξης,από 15.3.82και ότι ο Σιέγκαςπροηγείται τουΑθανασίου σε αρχαιότητακατά IQ ένα χρόνο στην προηγούμενη τους θέση. Σημειώθηκε επί­ σης ότι απόπλευράς προσόντων ο Σιέγκας κατέχειπανε­ πιστημιακό δίπλωμα, ενώ ο Αθανασίου δίπλωμα του Κ.Ε.Π.Ε., που είναι κατώτερο του πανεπιστημιακού. Η επιτροπή έλαβε επίσης σοβαρά υπόψη όσα ο Διευθυντής ,<ανάφερε στις συστάσεις του για την απόδοση των δύο υπαλλήλων και ιδιαίτερατοότι η απόδοσητου Αθανασίου παρουσιάζειβελτίωση κατάτο 1983 ενώ τουΣιέγκαπαρα­ μένει στο ίδιο επίπεδο όπωςκαικατάτο 1982. Ενόψει των πιο πάνω, ηΕπιτροπήέκρινε ότι οΑθανα- 9 ί 1 σίου είναι καταλληλότερος του Σιέγκα για προαγωγήκαι τον επέλεξε για την πέμπτηθέση. Συμπερασματικά ηΕπιτροπή,λαμβάνονταςυπόψηόλα τα ενώπιον της στοιχεία, έκρινε με βάσητα καθιερωμένα κριτήρια στο σύνολο τους (αξία, προσόντα, αρχαιότητα) ότι οι παρακάτωτέσσερεις υποψήφιοι με αρ. 2 -5 είναι κατάλληλοι για προαγωγή και ότι ο υποψήφιος με αρ.1 υπερέχει των υπόλοιπων υποψηφίων και αποφάσισε να τους προαγάγει στη μόνιμη (Τακτ.Προύπ.)θέση Ανώτα­ του Ελεγκτή Μεταφορών, 2ης Τάξης,στο ΤμήμαΧερσαί­ ων Μεταφορώναπό 15.11.83" ("The Commission considered theessential material from theFile of theFilling of thepost, as well as from the Personal Files and theConfidential Reports of theCandidates and took 358 «ς 3 C.L.R. Stylianou &Others v. Republic Demetriades J. into account theconclusions of the Departmental Committee and theviews and recommendations of the Director of Inland Transport. 5 The Commission, having taken intoaccount the high Confidential Reports, the seniority and thequalifications of Papparides, Finikarides, Kythreotis and Iacovou, who are the only ones whopossess thequalifications required under paragraph

(1)of the Scheme of Service,considered that they are suitable for promotion and decided to promote them to the first four posts. 10 Forthefifth post theselection wasmade between thecandidates whoareentitled toclaim the post pursuant to Note

(1)of the Scheme of Service, who were recommended by the Departmental Committee. 15 20 25 ™ The Commission, after it had made a general comparison between these candidates, noted that Athanassiou and Shiengas have the higher Confidential Reports ('Excellent' the last three years) and after ithad taken also intoaccount the qualifications and seniority, adopted therecommendations of theDirector that the selection for the fifth post be made between those two officers. The Commission took into account that both of them hold the post of Transport Controller, 1st Grade, as from 15.3.82 and that Shiengas precedes Athanassiou in seniority by one year in their previous post. It has been noted also that as regards qualifications Shiengas possesses a university degree, whereas Athanassiou a diploma of K.E.P.E. which is lower than that of auniversity. The Commission took also seriously intoconsideration all that the Director had stated in his recommendationsabout theperformance of thetwoofficers and par-' ticularly that the performance of Athanassiou presents an improvement during 1983, whereas that of Shiengas remains at the same level asin 1982. 359 Demetriades J. Stylianou & Others v. Republic

(1988)In view of the foregoing, the Commission considered that Athanassiou is more suitable to Shiengas for promotion and selected himfor thefifth post. In concluding, the Commission, having taken into account all thematerial before it,considered thaton thebasisof thees- 5 tablished criteria as a whole (merit, qualifications, seniority) thefollowing four candidates under Nos.2- 5are suitable for promotion and that candidate No. 1 is superior totheremainingcandidates and decided topromote them tothe permanent (Or. Budg.) post of Senior Transport Controller, 2nd Grade, JQ in theDepartment of Inland Transport, asfrom 15.11.83"). It is tobenoted thatcandidates Nos.2-5are notparties tothe present proceedings and that candidate No. 1 istheinterested party A. Athanassiou. Before proceeding to examine any other issue raised in the 15 present proceedings, I will consider first thecontention put forward bycounsel for the applicants in Cases Nos. 17/84and 162/ 84, that the Commission, in considering ihe merits of the applicants concerned, should have ignored thecontents of certain confidential reports in respect of them, which, in accordance to their 20 allegations,have been improperly prepared. Counsel for applicant Chr. Stylianou submitted that theassessment of the merits of the applicant in theconfidential reports for the years 1980, 1981,could not be considered as accurate and objective because the reporting officer, N. Finikarides, had him- 25 self a personal interest to the promotion in the post of Senior Transport Controller 2nd Grade,and,therefore, the Commission, by adopting and relying on such reports, which have been prepared by a competitor and acandidate for promotion to the post concerned, had violated the rulesof naturaljustice and acted un- ~ft der a misconception of amost material fact, thatistosay the true merits of theapplicant.• Counsel for applicant Ch. Efrem argued that the confidential 360 3 C.L.R. Stylianou & Others v. Republic Demetriades J. report inrespect of him for theyear 1981could not be prepared, for the samereasons as above, by thereporting officer I. Papparides, asnoimpartiality is secured. 5 Regarding hisconfidential report for theyear 1982,·counsel alleged that as Mr. Kapsosideris, who had signed the report, must havereliedpartially on theopinion of Mr.Papparides, becausehe was not the person whodirectly supervised the applicant, as direct supervisor wasstill Mr. Papparides, whocontinued tobethe officer incharge, such report wasnot impartially graded anddid notpresentthecorrect pictureof theapplicant. 10 15 2Q 2<r 35 Itistobe noted that atthetimeof thepreparation of the confidential reports for the years 1980, 1981, both Mr. Finikarides and Mr. Papparides held the post of Transport Controller 1st Grade and were superior to the applicants. Both applicants were promoted to such post on the 15th March, 1982 and from that time other hierarchically superior officers assumed duties of reporting officers in respect of them.The relevant schemes of service for the post of Senior Transport Controller 2nd Grade were approved by the Council of Ministers on the 17thJune, 1982and theMinistry of Finance gaveitsapproval for thefilling of thefive vacanciesinsuch poston the21st April, 1983. Even if I accept the contention of counsel for the applicants that the provisions of the draft Scheme of Service for the post were known to all persons concerned since 1981,Iam not prepared toacceptthecontention ofcounsel thatinanticipation of futurepromotions thereporting officers hadacted in abiased manner, because,inany case,in accordance with paragraph

(1)of the Schemeof Service, both N.Finikarides and I. Papparides would precede insuch promotion to the applicants, whowould beeligibleonly underNote

(1)of such schemeofservice. And what was actually done when thefive vacancies in theparticular post were tobefilled, wastopromote first thefour candidates whohad the required underparagraph

(1)of theSchemeof Service qualification, including N. Finikarides and I. Papparides, and then considertheremaining candidates, whowereentitled tobe promoted 361 Demetriades J. Stylianou & Others v. Republic

(1988)under Note

(1),including theapplicants. Therefore, it appears that actually noreal competition existed between N. Finikarides and I. Papparides on the one hand, and the applicants on theother, and nocomparison between them was 5 ever made. Therefore, Icannot accept the contention of counsel for the applicants that the reports concerned have not been prepared impartially or that thereoccurred aviolation of therulesof naturaljustice. In view of my above conclusion, Idismiss also the allegation ^Q of counsel for applicant Efrem that hisconfidential report for the year 1982 was not impartially graded and I think that after the promotion of this applicant tothe same post as his reporting officer I.Papparides, it was the onlycourse left open, in accordance with therelevant Regulations for the preparation of theconfiden- ,<tial reports, for the countersigning officer of the previous years, who was hierarchically superior, toactas reportingofficer for the applicant. Ifind, therefore, that the respondent Commission in evaluating themeritsof thecandidates hadcorrectly reliedon thecontentsof such reports in respect of the applicants. 20 I will now consider a common ground raised by counsel for the applicants in allcases: Ithasbeen submitted that,on the basis of merits, qualifications and seniority, the Commission failed in itsparamount duty toselect the bestcandidate for promotion. 25 Comparing applicant Stylianou inCase No. 17/84 with theinterested party, it must be observed that the interested party is strikingly superior in merit to theapplicant, in that hehas "excellent" confidential reports for the last four years, whereas the applicant isgraded as "very good". Further, theinterested party was recommended for promotion bytheDirectorof Inland Transport, 30 whereas theapplicant was not. Asregards qualifications, though both of them possess there362 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 Stylianou &Others v. Republic Demetriades J. quired under therelevant schemeof service qualifications and the applicant had passed thegovernment qualifying examinations, the interested party is better qualified than the applicant because he possesses a certificate in Accounting Higher of "KLIMENS", Athens, a diploma in Public Relations of "K.E.P.E." School, Athens and heisan Associate Memberof the Chartered Institute of Transport, U.K. Coming nowtoseniority,it isevident that theapplicant is senior to the interested party by one year to the post of Transport Controller, 2nd Grade, to which the applicant was appointed on the 1st December, 1975 and the interested party on the 1st December, 1976, and was first appointed on a casual basis about four months before the interested party. Idp nottreat theexperience of theapplicant of four months as significant and,in view of fact that theinterested party is superior in merit and qualifications to theapplicant, his seniority over the interested party could nothave tilted thescalesinhis favour. In viewof all the foregoing, Case No. 17/84 of applicant Chr. Stylianou hastobe dismissed. 20 Counsel appearing for applicant L. Shiengas, in Case No. 156/84,hassubmitted that the applicant was betterqualified than theinterested party and that theCommission was labouring under a misconception that the interested party possessed a diploma in Public Relations, whereas hedid not. 25 This last submission of counsel is clearly unfounded because in the personal file of the interested party, which was before the respondent Commission atthematerial time,there istobe found acertificate (seered 36)that hepossesses adiploma in Public Relations of "K.E.P.E." School, Athens. 30 Of course the applicant possesses a Diploma in Law for Executive Leadership La Salle Extension University Chicago (U.S.A.) which is a higher qualification than the diploma pos363 Demetriades J. Stylianou &Others v. Republic

(1988)sessed by the interested party, but thisfact was taken intoaccount by the Commission and specific reference totheaforesaid qualification of theapplicant and the interested party wasmade by itin its relevant minutes. It istobenoted that such qualifications were not required by the relevant scheme of service and that both the 5 applicant and the interested party possessed those required and, therefore, such qualification could not beconsidered asan advantage on thepart of the applicant over the interested party, but the selection of thebestcandidate should bemadeon thetotalityofall relevant circumstances (See, in this respect, Bagdades v. The ,, Central Bank of Cyprus,

(1973)3 C.L.R. 417, 427, 428 and Cleanthous v. The Republic,

(1978)3 C.L.R. 320, 327). But inanycase,considering theremaining qualifications of the interested party, Ido not treat that theapplicant was strikingly superior tohim in thisrespect.The fact that nospecific mention was , made that the applicant had passed the Government Qualifying Examinations cannot establish that theCommission failed tocarry out a due inquiry in this respect because all relevant material regarding thequalifications possessed by thecandidates wasplaced before the Commission and itistobepresumed thatalldata were taken intoaccount. ~ Regarding theirconfidential reports,both theapplicantand the interested party wererated as "excellent" in their last four confidential reports,though thereappear more favourable commentsin theconfidential reports inrespect of theinterested party. 2 As it appears from therelevant minutes of therepondent Commission (see exhibit 6) the Director of Inland Transport limited the selection for thefifth vacant post between only this applicant and the interested party and finally recommended the interested party for the reasons stated by him before the respondent Commission. Inthe lightof those reasons,Icannot accept the contention of counsel for theapplicant that theassertionsof theDirector are general,vagueand unsubstantiated because what wassaid by himcan find support from thecontentsof thepersonal and confidential report files inrespect tobothof them. 364 3 C.L.R. Stylianou & Others v. Republic Demetriades J. The fact thattheinterested party wasnotselected in 1975buta year later, when the applicant was first appointed is immaterial andcould not, inmyopinion, lead totheannulment of the subjudicedecision. 5 10 15 20 What remains now to be considered is the seniority by one yearof theapplicant overtheinterested party tothepostofTransport Controller 2ndGrade.The reasonsfor selecting the interested party for promotion appear extensively in thesubjudice decision and what has weighed in themind of theCommission were obviously therecommendations of the Director, which could not belightlydisregarded byit. Having carefully scrutinized all relevant material appertaining toeach one of them, Iam not satisfied that the applicant wasa strikingly superior candidate and should have been preferred instead of interested party. It is well settled that mere superiority, not being of astriking nature,cannotjustify theannulment of the subjudice decision (see, inter alia, Evangelou v. The Republic,

(1965)3C.L.R. 292, 300 and Makrides v.The Republic,

(1983)3 C.L.R. 750, 758). Therefore, recourse No. 156/84 also fails and has to be dismissed. Coming next totheargument of counsel for applicant in Case No. 162/84 that his seniority should have prevailed in view of thefact that theapplicant andtheinterested party areequal inme25. rit andqualifications, Imust statethat thisis not substantiated by thematerial before me. Regarding merit the interested party had betterconfidential reportsfor thelastfour yearsbecausehe-wasrated as"excellent"in allof them, whereas theapplicant wasrated as "excellent" onlyin twoof themandas "verygood" intheremaining two. 30 Theinterested party was,also,recommended asthemost suitable for promotion by theDirector of Inland Transport and asre365 Demetriades J. Stylianou & Others v. Republic

(1988)gards qualifications from a comparative table in respect of the candidates, it isclear that the interested party is better qualified than the applicant, though both of them possess the basic qualificationsrequired bytheschemeof service. Therefore, the seniority of the applicant byone year,over the 5 interested party, to the post of Transport Controller 2nd Grade, could not beadeterminingfactor inviewof thesuperiorityof the interestedparty in allotherrespects. Regarding the manner in which the recommendations of the Director of Inland Transport were made, counsel for applicant submitted that in viewof thefact thathefailed tocommend onall candidates in an equal manner and gave specific evaluations for only two out of seven candidates, the Commission erroneously attributed undue weight to the views of the Director of Inland Transport. 10 15 In answer tothispoint 1 willrefer tothecaseof Constantinou v. The Public Service Commission,

(1980)3 C.L.R. 551,where A. Loizou J., said the following (at p.561): "The argument advanced on behalf of the applicant that therehas been a violation of theprinciple of equality because 20 of the fact that the Head of the Department did not comment expressly on allcandidates butonly on those mentioned in the minutes, cannot stand. There cannot be, in my view, any question of unequal treatment if a Head of a Department expressly comments on some and does not comment on others. 25 Theinference tobedrawn,especially when thereisabignumber of candidates, as in the present case, is that for those not commented upon there wasnothing tobe said in favour and it wasnot his intention torecommend them for promotion or in other instances there is something to be said to explain why ~« and in view of certain circumstances, such as marked seniority,they arenot beingrecommended for promotion orthattheir seniority orother advantage should beignored." 366 3 C.L.R. 5 Stylianou & Others v. Republic Demetriades J. Lastly, Iwill deal with the complaint of counsel for applicant in Case No. 162/84 that the manner in which the Departmental Committeeconsidered theapplications wasdefective inLaw for it was not done in accordance with the standing regulations and in any way itdid not serve themain purpose for which the Committeewasestablished for. Hisargumentsinthisrespect may besummarized as follows: 10 (a)The information which wasbefore it wasinsufficient and, therefore, by not holding interviews or oral or written examinations,itfailed tocarry outitstask inexamining andevaluating the candidates'ability and worth. (

1. b)The report sent to the Commission was not in accordance with theprovisionsof theregulationsin that it should recommend not less than twoand not more than four candidates for the fifth postand not, asithad done,eleven candidates for all vacancies. 15 (
2. c)The material sent by the Departmental Committee to the Commission wasinsufficient and thePublic Service Commission failed tocarry out itself any inquiry and important information in respect of all candidates was lacking. 20 25 30 From the contents of the relevant report of the Departmental Committee (exhibit 4) which was sent totherespondent Commission, it appears that the Committee in forming its opinion about those eligible for promotion had taken into account the merit of thecandidates,astheywerereflected in theirconfidential reports, theirqualifications, seniority and experience. It wasnot obligatory,under,theregulations,on theCommittee, tohold interviews or oral or written examinations if it was, on the material before it, satisfied that all candidates should have been recommended for promotion. The taskof theDepartmental Committee isnot tosubstitute its decision for that of the respondent Commission as to the candidates to be promoted but by a preparatory procedure to select, 367 Demetriades J. Stylianou & Others v. Republic

(1988)from a greater number of candidates, those qualified under the relevant schemeof service and,incomparison totheothers,most suitable, to be recommended to the Commission as eligible for promotion, limiting the number as provided for in the relevant regulation. Since, therefore, the vacant posts in the present case 5 were five and all eleven candidates were eligible for promotion eitherunder paragraph

(1)of the scheme of serviceor under Note

(1)thereof, it wasnot improper for theCommittee torecommend all of them. Even if Iwere toaccept thecontention of counsel for the applicant that any irregularity hasoccurred in the present in- ,^ stance, Ido not treat such an irregularity asof a material nature, as tolead tothe annulment of therelevant administrative process (see, in this respect, Savoulla v. The Republic,

(1973)3 C.L.R. 706, 713, and Christou v. The Republic,

(1980)3 C.L.R. 437, 448). And Ido not agree with counsel that therespondent Commission had failed tocarry out a due inquiry or that it had acted on insufficient material because,asitappears from the subjudice decision, theCommission had before it all relevant material contained in thepersonalfilesand theconfidential reports soastodecide on the basis of the established criteria, i.e. merit, qualifica- 20 tions and seniority, the recommendations of the Head of Department, and theconclusions of theDepartmental Committee whom to select as the most suitable for promotion. The casesof Mikellidou v. The Republic,

(1981)3C.L.R. 461 and Agrotis v. The Electricity Authority of Cyprus,

(1981)3 C.L.R. 503, re- 25 ferred toby counsel for theapplicant in support of his aforesaid argument, are distinguishable, on their particular facts, from the present case. Inview of all theforegoing Iam not prepared toannul the sub judice decision in the present cases as I have not been satisfied 30 that the applicants were strikingly superior totheinterested party or that therespondent Commission had exceeded theouter limits of its discretion or in any way had acted in excess or abuse of powers. 368 3 C.L.R. Stylianou &Others v. Republic Demetriades J. In the result, the present recourses fail and are dismissed accordingly, but with noorder as totheircosts. Recourses dismissed. No orderastocosts. 369