1975 Dec. 4 REPUBLIC (EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE) v. PANAYIOTIS. IOANNOU MYRTIOTIS [TRIANTAFYLUDES, P., STAVRINIDES, L. LOIZOU, A. Loizou, MALACHTOS, JJ.] THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, Appellant, and PANAYIOTIS IOANNOU MYRTIOTIS, Respondent. (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 156). Administrative Law—Administrative decision—Due reasoning—Especially incases of exercise of discretionarypowers—Can bederived from therelevant file andfrom the wholerecordof the administrative process—Annulment of decision of Educational Service Committee because of lack of due reasoning—Appeal—Committees 5 relevant minutes notproduced infull before trialJudge andcertain essential facts emerged during hearing of the appeal—In the light of all the material before Court ofAppeal, not correct tosay that there exists lack of due reasoningvitiatingsubjudice decision. Educational Officers—Promotions—Assistant Headmaster in elemen- 10 tary education—Seniority—Interested parties by about a year senior to applicant—Qualifications—Applicant better qualified than interested parties—Merit—Applicant rated higher in confidential reports for 1971 but reverse appliesfor reports of 1970 and 1969—Reasonably open to the Committee, in the exercise of 15 its discretion, to selectfor promotion the interestedparties instead of the applicant. This was an appeal by the Educational Service Committee against the annulment of promotions, made by the Committee, on the ground that the relevant decision wasnot duly reasoned. 20 During the hearing of the proceedings before the trial Judge the Committee's relevant minutes were not produced in full; there were placed before him only extracts therefrom which were not sufficiently complete for the purpose of the case; consequently, certain essential facts emerged only during the 25 hearing of the appeal. 484 5 The Court of Appeal, also, heard arguments of counsel as regards the propriety of the decision of theappellantCommittee, to prefer the interested parties instead of the respondent, as this issue has not been dealt with by the trial Judge in view of the fact that he annulled the sub judice decision simply on the ground of lack of due reasoning. The factual position regarding this aspect of the appeal was as follows:- 1975 Dec. 4 REPUBLIC (EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE) v. PANAYIOTIS 10 15 In so far as seniority was concerned the interested parties were by about a year senior to the respondent in the post of school-teacher, grade A. On the other hand, the respondent seems to have had slightly better qualifications thanthe interested parties. As regards merit, it appears that in the'annual con fidential reports for 1971 the respondent's performance is rated higher than that of the interested parties, but the reverse applies in respect of the years 1970 and
- Held, (I) with regard to the issue of due reasoning: 20 25 In the light of all the material which is now before us, (see p. 487 of the judgment post) and having in mind that, as stated by Dendias in his textbook on Administrative Law, 5th ed., vol. A, p. 151, the reasoning for an administrative decision, especially in cases of exercise of discretionary powers, can be derived from the relevant file and from the whole record of the administrative process ("εκ τοΰ φακέλου της υποθέσεως και εκ τοΰ συνόλου της διοικητικής ενεργείας"), we are of the viewthat it would not be correct to say that there exists lack of due re asoning vitiating the decision of the Committee to promote the interested parties. Held, (II) with regard to the propriety of the decision: 30 We have not any doubt that it was reasonably open to the Committee, in the exercise of its discretion, to select for pro motion the interested parties instead of the respondent; and, therefore, the recourse of the respondent could not have suc ceeded, in this respect, before thetrial Judge, and cannot succeed before us now. 35 Appeal allowed. Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Hadjianastassiou, J.) given on the 26th February, 1975 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case N o . 384/72) whereby the 485 IOANNOU MYRTIOTIS 1975 Dec. 4 promotions of the interested parties to the post of Assistant Headmaster in the Elementary Education were annulled. REPUBLIC (EDUCATIONAL A. S. Angelides, for the appellant. SERVICE K. Talarides, for the respondent. COMMITTEE) Cur. adv. vult. V. PANAYIOTIS IOANNOU MYRTIOTIS The facts sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.: This is an appeal by the Republic (through theEducationalServiceCommittee) from the judgment* given by a Judge of this Court in a recourse made by the re- 10 spondent against the promotions to the post of Assistant Headmaster, in Elementary Education, of S. Nicolaides and P. Sozou (referred to hereinafter as the "interested parties"); the promotions were annulled by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the relevant decision of the Educational Service Committee 15 was not duly reasoned. It is most unfortunate that during the proceedings before the trial Judge the Committee's relevant minutes were not produced in full; there were placed before him only extracts therefrom which were not sufficiently complete for the purpose of the 20 case; consequently certain essential facts, to which we shall refer in the course of our judgment, emerged only during the hearing of this appeal. The administrative process, which led to the promotions in question, commenced on January 10, 1972; on that date, after 25 studying the personal files and confidential reports files of those entitled to promotion in accordance with the relevant scheme of service, and having taken into account the merits, qualifications and seniority of the candidates, as they appeared on the material before it, the appellant Committee decided, on 30 the basis of certain criteria, to call for interviews 239 candidates; all these candidates were school-teachers, grade A. Later on, after the interviews, certain representations were made by the School-Teachers Trade Union, and, apparently, as a result, there were interviewed other candidates who had not 35 been selected for the purpose in accordance with the criteria * Reported in this Part at p. 58, ante. 486 5 5 laid down on January 10, 1972; and it has transpired, during this appeal, after production and examination of the full texts of the relevant minutes of the appellant Committee, that the two interested parties were among those selected for interview as a result of the above representations. On May. 10, 1972, the Committee met and considered the candidates for thepost concerned; as it appears from its minutes, having taken, inter alia, into account, first the merits of each candidate (on the basis of the confidential reports made about 10 him by the Inspectors, of the impression he had made when interviewed, and, in general, of the opinion formed by the / Committee in the light of all relevant material before it), second ly, the qualifications of the candidates, thirdly, their seniority, and, fourthly, the views of the General Inspector and of the 15 Inspectors of Elementary Education who had been present at the interviews, as well as the views of the Head of the Depart ment of Elementary Education who was present at its meeting, the Committee decided to promote at once some of the candi dates, and, also, it prepared a "waiting list", as it was called, 20 with a view to further promotions later; it comprised sixtyfive candidates, among whom there were included the respondent and the interested parties. 25 30 35 40 A perusal of the text of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee on May 10, 1972 (which unfortunately were not set out in full when attached to the Opposition) leaves no doubt that at that meeting there were not actually present the General Inspector and the Inspectors of Elementary Education, but reliance was placed on the views which they had expressed at the interviews. Later, there followed another meeting of the Committee, on July 4, 1972, at which out of the candidates on the "waiting list" there were selected for promotion thirteen, including the interested parties, but not the respondent. The relevant part of the minutes of the meeting of July 4, 1972, reads as follows :" Έν συνεχείς της άπό 10/5/72 αποφάσεως της καΐ βάσει των έναύτηκαθορισθέντωνκριτηρίων ή Έττιτροττήαποφασί ζει όπως eis τους κάτωθι διδασκάλους,περιληφθέντας είς τον καταρτισθέντα κατά την ως άνω ήμερομηνίαν (βλ. πρακτικά) κατάλογον αναμονής προσφερθη προαγωγή είς θέσιν Β.Δ., Σχολείων Στοιχειώδους 'Εκπαιδεύσεως άπό 1/9/72 ". 487 1975 Dec. 4 REPUBLIC (EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE) v. PANAYIOTIS IOANNOU MYRTIOTIS 1975 Dec. 4 REPUBLIC (EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE) (" Pursuant to its decision of 10/5/72, and on the basis of the criteria specified therein, the Committee decides that to the following school-teachers, who were included in the on the said date (see minutes) prepared waiting list, be offered promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster of Schools of Elementary Education as from 1/9/72 "). 5 v. PANAYIOTIS IOANNOU MYRTIOTIS In the light of all the material which is now before us, and having in mind that, as stated by Dendias in his textbook on Administrative Law, 5th ed., vol. A, p. 151, the reasoning for an administrative decision, especially in cases of exercise of ]0 discretionary powers, can be derived from the relevant file and from the whole record of the administrative process ("έκ τοΰ φακέλλου της υποθέσεως και έκ τοΰ συνόλου της διοικητικής ενερ γείας"), we are of the view that it would not be correct to say that there exists lack of due reasoning vitiating the decision 15 of the Committee to promote the interested parties. We have, also, heard arguments of counsel as regards the propriety of the decision of the appellant Committee to prefer the interested parties instead of the respondent (this issue has not been dealt with by the trial Judge in view of the fact that 20 he annulled the sub judice decision simply on the ground of lack of due reasoning): In so far as seniority was concerned the interested parties were by about a year senior to the respondent in the post of school-teacher, grade A. On the other hand, the respondent seems to have had slightly better qualifications thanthe interested parties. As regards merit, it appears that in the annual con fidential reports for 1971 the respondent's performance is rated higher than that of the interested parties, but the reverse applies in respect of the years 1970 and
- 25 30 With alt the above in mind we have not any doubt that it was reasonably open to the Committee, in the exercise of its discretion, to select for promotion the interested parties instead of the respondent; and,therefore, the recourse of therespondent could not have succeeded, in this respect, before the trial Judge, 35 and cannot succeed before us now. As we have come already to the conclusion that it was not right to annul the sub judice decision of the Committee, as lacking due reasoning, we have to allow this appeal and to dismiss accordingly the recourse of the respondent against the promotions of the interested parties. 488 40 We shall make no order as to the costs of the appeal; and the order for costs made by the trial Judge against the Republic is set aside. 1975 Dec. 4 REPUBLIC Appeal allowed. Order for costs as above. (EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE) v. PANAYIOTIS IOANNOU MYRTIOTIS 489