THAT IT WAS QUITE NORMAL FOR THE COMMISSION TO KEEP ITSELF INFORMED OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FROM OUTSIDE THE INSTITUTION AND FOR IT TO HAVE ACCORDINGLY TAKEN ACCOUNT OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A CANDIDATE WHEN CONSIDERING THE INTERNAL CANDIDATES .
15 BY THUS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZING THAT IT TOOK ACCOUNT OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THAT OFFICIAL FROM THE COUNCIL , THE COMMISSION IS IN EFFECT ADMITTING THAT THE HEAD OF THE TRANSLATION DEPARTMENT IN QUESTION WISHED , EVEN BEFORE THE VACANCY NOTICE WAS PUT UP , TO PROPOSE THAT THAT OFFICIAL BE APPOINTED TO THE POST OF REVISER . SUCH AN ATTITUDE RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE POST OF REVISER WAS IN FACT RESERVED FOR THAT OFFICIAL EVEN BEFORE THE START OF STAGE ( A ) OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 29 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS .
16 IT HAS TO BE NOTED , HOWEVER , THAT SINCE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS NOT OBLIGED TO FILL A POST BY PROMOTION WITHIN THE INSTITUTION AND HAS A WIDE DISCRETION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING THE CANDIDATE WITH THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF ABILITY , EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY , THE COURT MUST CONFINE ITSELF TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION KEPT WITHIN PROPER BOUNDS AND DID NOT EXERCISE ITS POWER IN A MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS MANNER .
17 IN THAT RESPECT THE MERE FACT THAT WHEN THE RECRUITMENT PROCEDURE WAS OPENED , A CANDIDATE FROM ANOTHER INSTITUTION WAS REGARDED AS BEING THE MOST SUITABLE , DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE INTERNAL CANDIDATURES WERE NOT CAREFULLY CONSIDERED .
18 IN THIS CASE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT TO SHOW THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DID NOT IN FACT CONSIDER THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MERITS OF THE INTERNAL CANDIDATES . IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS RESPECT , IN THE FIRST PLACE , THAT TWO OF THE FOUR APPLICANTS ( OEHRGAARD AND DELVAUX ) HAD ONLY TWO YEARS ' SENIORITY IN GRADE L/A 6 WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY THE MINIMUM SENIORITY REQUIRED FOR PROMOTION BUT IS FAR BELOW THE AVERAGE RECORDED IN 1981 OF FOUR YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS AND THAT THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WAS THEREFORE PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO CONSIDER THAT THEIR EXPERIENCE WAS INADEQUATE . IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE OTHER TWO APPLICANTS HAD ALSO APPLIED FOR POSTS OF PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR IN GRADE L/A 5 ( VACANCY NOTICE COM/1134-1140/80 ) AND WERE MOREOVER PROMOTED TO SUCH POSTS ON 1 MARCH 1981 , EVEN BEFORE THE OFFICIAL FROM THE COUNCIL WAS APPOINTED TO THE POST OF REVISER . THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT , HAVING REGARD TO THEIR FILES , THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY DECIDED THAT THOSE TWO CANDIDATES COULD BE APPOINTED TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL TRANSLATOR BUT NOT TO THAT OF REVISER .
19 FURTHERMORE , NEITHER THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS NOR THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT BY APPOINTING A THIRD PARTY , THE DEFENDANT EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN A WAY THAT WAS MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS .
20 IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THE