(1989)19S9February2S [STYLIANIDES.J] INTHE MATTER Of ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSTANTINOS Ρ IOANNIDES AND OTHERS, Applicant THE REPUBLIC ΟΓCYPRLS.THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Respondents (Cases.\o 501/86510/S6.513/S6.514/S6515/S6) Public Officers — Promotions — Departmental Board — ThePublic Service Law 1967 (Law 33/67),section 36
(1)— Qualifications of candidates,the ultimate responsibility m respect thereof— Rests with the respondent Commission 5 Bias— Promotion of PublicOfficers— Thelackof impartiality byPublic Officer A against Public Officer Β must be established, withsufficient certainty, eitherby fads emergingfrom relevant administrativerecoids or by safe inferences to be drawπfrom theexistence of such facts 10 PublicOfficers— Promotions — Qualifications— ' Excellentknowledgeof the regulations and the procedures of the operation of registry and performance of clerical\\ ork"—Excellentknowledge canbe acquired bv stud}. practice, experience — In the circumstances of this casea decision could be reachedasregardspossession of this qualificationby ]5 examining the annual confidential reports andthepersonal files of the candidates— Reiection b\ Commissionof suggestionb\ Departmental Boardto holdoralexaminationsregarding thesaidqualification, didnot, m the circumstancesof thiscase \iuate thedecision 20 PublicOlficcrs— Promotions — Headof Department— Recommendations of — Inconsistency with the contents of confidential reports — 27S 3 C.L.R, loannides &Others \. Republic Recommendations shouldbe disregarded or be gi\en limited weight dependingon thee\tent ofinconsistency PublicOfficers— Promotions — The three cniena. ment qualifications and semonty — Commission has to weighallrelevant considerations andmay attnbutc more significance toonefactorthantoanotherm the course of doing so. pro\ided that it exercises properly its rele\ant discretion — Court does not interfere, if the decision wasreasonabh open tothe Commission —Coun doesnot substituteitsowndiscretion asregardsthe choice of themost suitablecandidate m theplace of the discretionof the Commission The issues raised in these recourses, which they were held together. and the principles of law.which the Court applied mdetermining them. sufficient!} appear mthe hereinabove Hcadnotes The Court found that the complaint of one of the applicant s complaints about bias/mala fides was not substantiated The Court as far as another applicant was concerned, found that the Commission right!} disregarded therecommendation of the Head of the Department because of the better o\er the \ears confidential teports for those promoted, a factor which the Commission invoked as special reasoning why it disregarded the recommendation of the Head of the Department Recoursesdismissed No orderasto costs Cases referred to Omstou\ Republic(I9S0) 3 CI R 437 SotcnadouandOtheii\ Republic(19S1) 3 CLR 921 CeorghiouandOther*\ Republic(I9SS) 3CLR 67S. Republic \ Pencleous andOthers(19S4j3CL R 577 Mytides and Another \ Republic(19S3) i CLR 1096. Ka^amiasandOthers \ Republic(I9S4) 3CLR 149S. Lardis\ Republic (PublicSen ice Commission)
(1967)3CLR 279 64. Ioannides &Othersv.Republic
(1989)Republic v. Hans(19S5)3C.L.R. 106, Ceorghiou v. Republic(PublicScmcc Commission)
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74. Republicv. Koufettas
(1985)3C.LR. 1950, 5 Republicv. Zachariades
(1986)3C.LR. S52. Republic v. Roussos
(1987)3C.L.R. 1217. 10' Hadjiloannou v. Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.
- Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the Respondents to 15 promote the interested parties tothepost of Clerical Officer in preference and instead of the applicants. A. S.Angeiides, for Applicants in CaseNo.501/
- 20 A. Dracos,for Applicant in Case No.510/
- A. Markides, for Applicants in Cases Nos. 513/
- 514/86 and515/
- 25 P. Hadjidewetriou, Counsel of the Republic B, for the Respondents. Cur. adv.vult. STYLIANIDES, J. read the following judgment. The Respondents,thePublicServiceCommission,bydecision taken on 24th April. 1986,promoted with effect from 1stMay, 1986, Soterios G. Yiangou, Constantinos Iacovides, Panayiotis Kofteros, Stavros Messios, Andreas Michaelides and Demos 35 Petropoulos! (the interested parties), to the post of Clerical Officer. This promotion was published in the Official Gazette No. 1515 dated 6th June.
- The applicants being aggrieved filed these recourses. Applicants in Cases Nos.510/86,513/86,514/86 and 515/S6 2S0 40 30 3 C.L.R. Ioannides &. Others A. Republic SUhanides. J. seek the annulment of the promotion of all the six interested parties Applicant in Case No 501/86 challenges only the validity of the promotion of interested parties Yiangou and Iacovides 5 In the couise of the hearing, three of the applicants in Case No 514/
- namely.Mary Lambnanidou.Antonia Hadjilazarou and Ioannis Efstathiou andapplicant No 2 in Case No 515/
- Maria Evnpidou. withdrew their recourses which were 10 dismissed as withdrawn These cases were taken together as they challenge the same administrative act andthey present common points of law and fact 15 The post of Clerical Officer is a promotion post. After the necessary prerequisites, a Departmental Board was set up. as provided in section 36 and the relevant Regulations made thereunder The Board hadbefore them,besides thescheme of 20 service. 149 files of Clerks 1st Grade,theimmediate lower post to that of Clerical Officer The Departmental Board, having considered the matter, decided that sixty of the candidates lacked thequalification of two years serviceinthepost of Clerk 1st Giade They made two lists, one containing the names of 25 those who possessed the qualifications and one of those who lacked them Out of the eightv-mne eligible candidates they recommended, as they were duly bound. twent\-four officers. ι e four for each post 30 35 40 In their report it is stated that the) considered the merit. qualifications and seniority of each eligible candidate Thev noted in paragraph 3thatmost of thecandidatesrecommended for selection for promotion had the same seniority in the post they were holding andtheir pre\IOUSpost Insome cases there was a marked difference of rating between the last two years compared with the previous years LastK - as the candidates were posted at various sen ices andperforming different duties. having regard that one of the prescribed qualifications was "excellent knowledge of the regulations and procedures of functioning of the registry and performance of clencal work" ("άριστη γνώση tcov κανονισιχωνκαι διαδικασιών λειτουρ γίας αρχείουκαιδιεκπεραιώσεων τηςγραφειακής εργασίας"). 281 Strlianides. J. loannides & Others v. Republic
(1989)which was not easy to ascertain from the evaluation of the candidates -the Departmental Board suggested to the Public Service Commission to consider whether under the circumstances the candidates should be invited to oral examination. TheCommission on31st March. 1986.consideredthereport of theDepartmentalBoardanddecidednottoholdinterviewsoral examination. 10 On 24th April. 1986. the Head of the Department, the Director of Public Administration andPersonnel, attendedthe meecing of therespondentCommission andmadethefollowing recommendations,as recorded inthe minutes:"Έχει επικοινωνήσει μετουςοικείου;προϊσταμένου; και έχει πάρει τις απόψεις τους όσον αφορά τους υποψηφίου;. Λαμβάνοντα;αυτέςυπόψηκαιέχο\ααςεπίση;υπόψητατρία κριτήρια, την αξία; τα προσόντακαιτηναρχαιότητα,κατά ληξεσταεξή;συμπεράσματα: 15 20 Γιατι; έξι θέσει; μπορούννασυστηθούνοι ακόλουθοι: Αλωνεΰτου Αυγή Κοφτερό;Παναγιώτη; Μέσσιο; Σταύρο; Μιχαηλίδη;Ανδρέα; ΜιχαήλΜιχαήλ Πετρόπουλο;Δήμο; Στρατή; Ιωάννη; Πάγκου Σωτήριος Ια/ωβίδηςΚωνσταντίνος. 25 30 Οι εννέα αυτοί υποψήφιοιυπερέχουντωνάλλων 15υπο ψηφίων. Μεταξύτων zwia αυτών επικρατέστεροιείναιοι: 35 Αλωνεύτου Αυγή Κοφτερός Παναγιώτης Μέσσιος Σταύρο: Πετρόπουλος Δήμος ΠάγκουΣωτήριος. 40 3 C.L.R. Ioannides & Others >.Republic Stjlianides, J. Γιατη\ τε/.ευταια θέσηεποφιετσι στην Επιτροπήνααπο φασίσει Ο/.οι οι υποψήφιοι κατε/ου\ ζάλη γνώση τη: Αγγλική:. δεδοιιενου οτι όλοι υπηρέτησανστην προτη;αναδιοργάνω σηςθέσηΓραφέα. 2η; Τάξη;,πουητα\ θέσηΠροαγωγής, στην οποία το ΣχέδιοΥπηρεσίας απαιτούσεκαλήγνώση της Αγ γλικής " He proceeded further and stated where each one of the twent\-four candidates recommended b\ the Departmental Board was posted Thereafter the respondent Commission examined all the material fiom thefile of thefilling of thepost,thepersonal files and the confidential reports of the candidates and took into consideration the conclusions of the Departmental Board and the lecommendations of the Head of the Department The\ considered thefiles of theconfidential reports of thecandidates and.bearing in mindthattheελβΙιΐΒΐιοη was made bv different reporting and countersigning Officers approached same with caution Theyrecordedintheirminutesthemarks ofthetwennfour candidates recommendedbv the Departmental Board foi six \ears - 1980-1985.both mclusne The\ recorded, further. the semorm of the twenn-four recommended candidates Ultimately. the> reached the sub mdice decision I considei pertinent to quote verbatim thelast part of theminutes of the meeting of 24th April. 1986"Η Επιτροπή,αφού αξιολόγησε και συγκρίνε όλου: του: υποψήφιου;, υιοθέτησε, ιιε βάσητο σύνολο των καθιεοωιιενοιν κριτηρίων,τι: συστάσεις του Διευθυντή, για τους Σωτήριο Πάγκου. Παναγιώτη Κοφτερό. Σταύρο Μεσσιο κσι Δηιιο Πετροπουλοπρος π/.ηρωσητεσσάρας απο τιςθέσεις Οσον αφοοα την Λυγη Α/.ωνευτου. η Επιτροπήδεν ηδυνηθηιιεβάση τα ενώπιοντηςστοιχείαναυιοθετήσει τη σύσταση τουΔιευθυντήγιαπροαγωγήαυτή:, αφούπαρα τήρησεοτιοι Εμπιστευτικέ: Εκθέσειςτηςστοσύνολοτους υστερούνέναντιτωνάλλωνυποψηφίωνπουοΔιευθυντής έκρινε κατ' αρχήν οτι μπορούννα συστηθούν 283 Stylianides, J. loannides & Others v. Republic
(1989)Πατηνπλήρωση τωνάλλωνδύοθέσεωνη Επιτροπή, με βάση το σύνολο των καθιερωμένων κριτηρίων, επέλεξε τους Μιχαηλίδη Ανδρέα και ΙακωβίδηΚωνσταντίνο, των οποίων OLΕμπιστευτικέςΕκθέσειςείναιανώτερεςστο σύ νολο τουςαπότις ΕμπιστευτικέςΕκθέσειςτηςΑλωνεύτου 5 και των άλλων υποψηφίων πουοΔιευθυ%τήςέκρινε κατ' αρχήνότι μπορούννα συστηθούν. Συμπερασματικάη Επιτροπή,λαμβάνονταςυπόψη όλα τα ενώπιόλ' της ουσιώδηστοιχεία, έκρινε με βάσητα κα- 10 θιερωμένακριτήριαστοσύνολοτους(αςία,-προσόντα, αρ χαιότητα)ότι οι παρακάτωυπερέχουν τωνάλλωνυποψη φίων καιαποφάσισε νατουςπροαγάγει σαντουςπιο κα τάλληλους στη μόνιμη (Τακτ.Προΰπ.)θέση Γραμματεια κού Λειτουργού, Γενικό Γραααατειακό Ποοσωπικό από 15 1.5.86:" Applicants - loannidesinCaseNo.501/
- MouyiariinCase No.510/86, Pavli andTylhros in Case No.513/
- Michaelidou in Case No.514/86 and Nicolaou andHadiidemetriou in Case 20 No.515/86werenotrecommendedbytheDepartmentalBoard. All interestedparties andapplicants MichaelinCaseNo. 513/86 and Aloneftou in Case No.515/86were recommended by the Headof the Department. 25 The applicants challenge the validity of the sub judice promotions on thefollowinggrounds:The Departmental Board did not recommend the best suitable candidates having regard to all criteria. It did not 30 carry out aproper inquiry. Noinquiry was earned outwith regard to the qualification of excellent knowledge of the regulations andprocedure of functioning of theregistry and performance of clerical work. Thenon-recommendation of applicant Mouyiari in Case No. 510/86 was a disguised 35 persecution. The Public Sen-ice Commission limited the range of selection amongst the twentyfour candidates recommended by the Departmental Board andthus excluded from the due 40 comparison all theothers. Theydidnotcarry outanyinquiry with regard tothe qualifications of thecandidates and failed 284 3 C.L.R. 5 loannides &Others v.Republic Stylianides, J. to hold the examination suggested by the Departmental Board. The recommendations of the Head of the' Department were inconsistent with the contents of the files ofthecandidates. They disregarded therecommendationsof the Head of the Department for Avgi Aloneftou without cogent reasons. They failed to select the best suitable candidate for promotion. Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted 10 that the Departmental Boardhadbefore them both thepersonal files andthefiles of theconfidential reports ofallthecandidates: theytook intoconsideration allrelevantfactors:thedecision for the recommendation, according to the relevant Regulations,of the twentyfour candidates, i.e.. four for each post, was 15 reasonably open to them: no one of those not recommended was strikingly superior or even simply superior to those recommended. With regard to applicant in Case No.510/86 -Mouyiari -he 20 subminedthatshedidnotsubstantiatetheallegation ofdisguised persecution or bias and no facts emerge from the relevant administrative records ofeither biasor persecution. In relation to the Public Service Commission he contended 25 that they did not err in not holding interviews - oral examination. In the process of selection they made a due inquiry about the possession of the qualifications of the candidates, according to the presumption of regularity, as they had before them all the confidential reports from which it 30 emerges that theyhadtheknowledge required,having regard to the duties performed bythem. The Commission considered all the candidates, though finally the selection was amongst the candidates recommended by the Board and ultimately by the Head of the Department. The departure from the 35 recommendation ofthe Head of the Department with regard to applicant Aloneftou was duly reasoned. And. finally, he submitted that the sub judice decision was reasonably open to the Commission and noapplicant wasstrikingly superior to any of the interested parties, having regard to all factors on which 40 theclaims of publicsen·ants for promotion are considered. I consider pertinent to deal first with the assertion that Stylianides, J. loannides & Others v. Republic
(1989)applicant Mouyiari (Case No. 510/86) was the victim of disguised persecution. An act of the administration has to be annulledif itistaintedwith bias. Malafides, irrelevant motives, collateral and indirect objects, and so forth, are examples of maners which,if proved toexist,might establish theultravires character of theact in question. Badfaith should notbe use to blurthedistinctionbetween an ultraviresactdonebonafide and an act on theface of it regular but which willbe heldtobenull and void if mala fides is discovered and brought before the Court. 5 10 In Case No. 1041/1969 of the Greek Council of State the Board didnot include the applicant in thelist of thoseeligible for promotion. Hechallenged this decision onthegroundthat the Chairman of the Board had enmity against him due to 15 service disputes of the applicant with another rear-admiral under whom the applicant served and that this animosity was thecause of an adverse transfer oftheapplicant in 1963andthe imposition of a disciplinary sentence by thesame rear-admiral on theapplicant in 1964. TheCourtstated:20 "Πληνόμωςολόγοςούτοςτυγχάνειαπορριπτέος, διότι ο αιτών δεν επικαλείταισυγκεκριμένα πραγματικά περι στατικάπροςθεμελίωσιντηςεχθρικής, ωςισχυρίζεται, ένα ντιαυτούδιαθέσεωςτουρηθέντοςυποναυάρχου,ουδ'απο- 25 δεικνύειότιαιωςάνωμνημονευόμενοιδυσμενείςδι'αυτόν υπηρεσιακαί ενέργειαι τουαυτούυποναυάρχου δενεγένοντο επί τηβάσειαντικειμενικών,υπηρεσιακών κριτηρίων, αλλ'ωφείλοντοεις έχθοαναυτούέναντιτου αιτούντος." ' 3 0 ('•But this reason is dismissed because the applicant does notinvoke concreterealevents for establishing the hostile,as hecontends,against him,intentions of the said admiral,nor does it prove that the above referred adverse to him official acts of the said admiral were not made on the basis of 35 objectrve. official criteria,butweredueto hisenmity against the applicant.") The burden of proof is cast on the applicant. In Kyriakopoulos "Greek Administrative Law". Pan G. 4th 40 Edition,p. 140,itis statedthatfor theassertion of theapplicant to be established, it must be supported by concrete elements 286 3 C.L.R. loannides & Others v. Republic Stylianides, J. which areproducedby theapplicant,if notcontainedinthe files of the case. Abuse of power cannot be deduced from simple probabilities. In Christou v.Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R.437, at p. 449 it was said:5 "Thelack of impartiality by public officer A against public officer Β must be established, with sufficient certainty, either by facts emerging from relevant administrative records or by safe inferences tobe drawn from theexistence of such facts;" 10 (See,also Soteriadou and Others v.Republic (19S3) 3C.L.R. 921.) In the present case the allegation was not substantiated by 15 any evidence and there is nothing in the files in support of it. The applicant failed to discharge theburden cast on her andthis ground fails. 20 25 The DepartmentalBoards areestablished undersection 36of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law No. 33/67). They are a necessary intermediate organ to assist the Commission in the performance of its duties. Their decisions are not binding and the duty and responsibility continues to rest entirely on the Public Service Commission to carry out the due inquiry and take all necessary steps in order to reach a decision after exercising the discretionary power conferred on it by the Law. The DepartmentalBoard hadbefore it all therelevant files of all the candidates. As a first step they excluded from 30 consideration those who clearly did not possess the prescribed qualifications and could not be eligible for promotion to the post in question.They madetwo lists. All theapplicants andthe interested parties were included in thelist of eligiblecandidates. Then they proceeded, after taking into consideration merit, 35 qualifications and seniority, to recommend for promotion twentyfour candidates. Onemay say thatthescales infavour of those recommended, as the record goes under Appendix III. were tipped by the better confidential reports of those candidates. Inthebodv of their report we read:40 "2. ΣτησυνέχειαηΤμηματική Επιτροπήεπελήφθηκε της κρίσεωςτων-υποψηφίωνπουαναφέρονταιστοΠαράρτημα 287 Stylianides. J. loannides &Others v. Republic
(1989)Ι καιαφού εξέτασετην αξία. ταπροσόντα καιτηναρχαιό τητα κάθε υποψηφίου,αποφάσισεομόφωνα να συστήσει για προαγωγήτουςΓραφεί: 1ηςΤάξηςπουαναφέρονταιμε αλφαβητικήσειράστοσυνημμένοΠαράρτημα III...." 5 Having given the matter anxious consideration I have reached the conclusion that theBoard carried out adue inquiry and that their decision was reasonably open tothem. The seniority of those applicants who were not 10 recommended over the candidates recommended was not of significant weight. (SeeAndreas Z. Georghiou and Others v. The Republic of Cyprus, through the Public Service Commission (19SS) 3C.L.R.678). 15 A public officer must possess the required qualifications under theschemeof service onthedateon whichtherequest for the filling of thevacancy undersection 17of thePublic Service Law, 1967, (Law No. 33/67) is received by the Commission. (See Republic v. Pericleous and Others (19S4) 3 C.L.R. 20 577). The Commission has a statutory duty to construe the scheme of service, then ascertain the qualifications of each candidate as a factual situation andfinally to apply thescheme 25 of service in this factual situation and decide whether the candidate is under the scheme of service eligible for promotion. These duties cannoteither be usurped by or left to the Departmental Board; the competence and responsibility rests onthe Commission.{Myt'ides and Another v.Republic 30 (19S3)3C.L.R. 1096.). The qualification for whichtheapplicants submittedthatthe possession was not inquired into is: "άριστηγνώσις τωνκα νονισμών και διαδικασιών λειτουργίαςαρχείουκαι διεκπε- 35 ραιώσεως της γραφειακής εργασίας". It does not require any examinations. only "excellent knowledge'*. Knowledge is acquired in more than one ways - by study, practice. experience. The duties of the previous posts, held by the candidates, are set out in the schemes of service. The duties 40 actually performed by them in their career are recorded in their annual confidential reports. The Commission had before 2SS 3CL.R. loannides &Others > Republic St>Iianides, J. it the confidential reports and the personal files of the candidates There is no statuton provision for interviews. thoughthe\ ha\e recei\ed express recognition mthecase-law ofthisCourt andthiscourseisopentotheCommission The\ 5 stated in their minutes that they didnot consider it necessary to hold interviews as suggested b> the Depanmental Board Lnder the presumption of regularity, they took into consideration thecontents of thefiles aswell as the contents ofthereport of Depanmental Board Aperusal ofthefilesof 10 the candidates and the duties of their previous post could reasonabh lead the Commission to the conclusion that the candidates possessed thisqualification andtherefore a funher mquirv in the form of either oral examination or interview was not necessaiv In Kaiamias and Others v. Republic 15 (19S4)3CLR 149S,at pp 1503-1504it wassaid- 20 25 30 'The second ground upon which these two applicants challenge the sub ludice decision is that the respondent Commission didnot carry out a due inquiry as to whether the candidates satisfied the relevant scheme of seniceand in panicular with regard to the qualification of organizing and administrative abilin. responsibility, lmtiame and judgment In fact, there doesnot appear which factors the respondent Commission had in mind that the\ were possessed b\ theinterested panies. Thislattergroundmaybebnefh disposedofbypointing out that these qualifications demanded by the schemes of senicearemattersinrespect ofwhichofficers arereponed upon intheirconfidential repons anditiswrongtosaythat the respondent Commission did not have the necessary material before it morder to arrive at the conclusion that the candidates, both the applicants and the interested pames possessedthese qualifications " 35 Thecontention thattheCommission didnotconsiderallthe candidates isnot founded Theyhadbefore them all the files. the\ had alist of all the eligible candidates There is nothing indicating that the\ did not examine the claims of those not 40 recommended b\ the Depanmental Board The fact that in another step in the process they concentrated on those recommended by the Board, does not carry any funher the 289 Stylianides. J. loannides &Others v. Republic
(1989)contention of the applicants. It was perfectly open to the Commission to act as they did and nothing before this Coun establishes or indicates that they acted contrary to the statute or to theprinciples of Administrative Law. 5 Both by statutory commandandthecase-law of thisCoun theCommission shall have due regard tothe recommendations by the Headof theDepanment. Itiswell established thatthe Public Service Commission has to pay heed to such recommendations and if they decide to disregard them they 10 have to give reasons for doing so. (Andreas Lardis v. Republic (Public Service Commission)
(1967)3C.L.R. 64, Mytides and Another v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1096. Republic v.Haris
(1985)3C.L.R. 106.) 15 When therecommendationsoftheHeadof the Depanment are inconsistent with the overall picture presented by the confidential repons they should be disregarded or be given limited weight depending on the extent of inconsistency. (AndreasLardis v.Republic(supra), OdysseasGeorghiou v. 20 Republic (PublicService Commission)
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74. 84,Republic v. Koufettas
(1985)3C.L.R.1950.) The Commission didnot adopttherecommendations ofthe Head of the Depanment with regard to applicant Avgi 25 Aloneftou. Theirreasons areexpresslyset outas follows:"...ηΕπιτροπήδενηδυνήθημεβάσηταενώπιοντηςστοι χεία ναυιοθετήσειτησύσταση τουΔιευθυντήγιαπροαγιογή αυτής,αφούπαρατήρησεότιοι ΕμπιστευτικέςΕκθέσεις 30 της στο σύνολο τους υστερούν έναντι τωνάλλων υποψη φίων πουοΔιευθυντήςέκρινεκατ' αρχήνότι μπορούν να συστηθούν/' The Commission took pains to record in their minutes the 35 evaluation of the twentyfour candidates recommended by the Board, as set outintheconfidential repons for six consecutive years.Amereglanceatthistableleavesnodoubtthat Aloneftou was inferior to the promotees andtherecommendation of the Head of the Depanment in this respect was inconsistent with 40 the overall picture of Aloneftou presented by the confidential repons. Itisnotewonhy thatall thosepromotedwere amongst 290 3 C.L.R. loannides & Others v. Republic Stylianides, J. the nine recommendedby theHeadof the Depanment. 5 In all otherrespects therecommendationsof the Director were not inconsistent with the contents of the administrative files, bearing in mind always that the reponing officers for the numerous candidates were different. With regard to seniority I have already referred earlier on. Theseniority of someof theapplicantswas distant:itwas taken 10 into consideration, independently of the weight that it was attributed to it by thepromotingauthority. i5 20 The Commission in trying to select the most suitable candidate has to weigh together all relevant considerations and may attributemoresignificance toonefactor than to another in the course of doing so. provided however that it exercises properly its relevant discretion. (Odysseas Georghiou r. Republic (Public Service Commission)
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74. Republic v.Zachahades
(1986)3C.L.R.852 καιRepublic v, Roussos
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1217.) Two basic principles in accordancewith which cases of this nature may be determined were laid down in Republic v. Zachariades (supra) as follows at p.855:- 25 30 35 40 "First, that an administrative coun does not annul a decision of an appointing authority, such as the appellant Commission, which, in accordance with the law applicable to, and the facts of. a panicular case, was reasonably open to such authority (see. inter alia. Georghiou v. The Republic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 74, 82 and more recently Petrides v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R.
- Constantinou v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 498, 502, Efthymiou v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1171, 1174 and Papadopoullos v. The Public Service Commission
(1985)3 C.L.R.405. 413). Secondly,thatan administrative coun does not, in acase of this nature, substitute its own discretion as regards the choice of the most suitable candidate for promotion or appointment intheplace of thediscretion of the competent organ (see. in this respect, Christou v. The Republic, 4 291 Stylianides, J. loannides &Others v. Republic
(1989)R.S.C.C. 1, 6, Georghiades v. The Republic
(1970)3 C.LR. 257, 268 and Piperi v. The Republic (19S4) 3 C.L.R. 1306.1311).;; Havingregardtotherivalsubmissionsofcounsel andinthe 5 lightofthematerialbeforethisCoun. Iamoftheopinionthat the subjudice decision wasreasonablyopentotherespondent Commission for promotion of the interested panies to the post of Clerical Officer. 10 Further, none of the applicants has established striking superiority over any of the interested panies in the senseof the notion of "striking superiority'' given by this Coun in Hadjiloannouv. Republic(\9^)s C.L.R. 1041. Indeedthey have not established simple superionty. 15 For the foregoing reasons, these recourses fail. They are hereby dismissed, the sub judice decision is confirmed under Article 146.4(a)of the Constitution. 20 Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recourses dismissed. No orderas to costs. 292