clr/1976/1976_3_224.pdf

(2)of theLaw (as re-enacted by Law 29 of 1966)— Letter by Commander to Minister informing him of his intention to promote the officers named therein andseeking the Minister's approval—Looking at essence of said letter and not at its form it is clearly a communication to the Minister, for his approval, of a decision already reached by the Commander—Commander not bound to set out infull all material which, in his opinion, justified the decisions which by means of the said letter heplaced before the Minister for approval. Administrative decision—Due reasoning—Promotions of members of the Police Force—Made by the Commander with the approvalof the Minister—Section 13

(2)of the Police Law, Cap. 285 (as re-enacted by the Police (Amendment) Law, 1966)—Minister's approval need not be duly reasoned. Police Law, Cap. 285—Police Force—Promotions of members of— Made by Commander with approvalof theMinister—Section 13

(2)of the Law (as re-enacted by Law 29 of 1966)—Not the task of the Minister to select himself, in the first instance, the most suitable candidates—Or to decide himself, whether there existed sufficient grounds for making permanent or temporary or acting appointments—He had only to decide whether the relevant decisions, as made by the Commander, could properly be approved 224 10 15 20 by him—Moreover in accordance with presumption of regularity, and in the absence of any proof to,the contrary the Court, must assume that the Minister did give his approval after considering all material aspects of the decisions to be approved. 5 Administrative Law—Presumption of regularity. The applicants in these recourses challenged the validity of promotions, temporary promotions and acting appointments made to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Police Force of the Republic; 10 15 20 25 By means of a letter* addressed by the Commander of Police to the Minister of Interior on April 3, 1971, (to be referred to hereinafter as Annex A) the Commander stated that for the purpose of securing the necessary suitable supervisory personnel, in order to fill existing gaps in the ranks of junior officers, he intended to make certain promotions to the rank of Sub-Inspector, certain temporary promotions to the rank of Temporary Sub—Inspector and certain acting appointments to the rank of Acting Sub-Inspector. In Annex A the Commander set out the names of all those whom he intended to promote or appoint as above and he was seeking accordingly the approval of the Minister. The proposals of the Commander were approved by the Minister of Interior and his approval appears recorded at the very end of Annex A; it was expressed in one word "approved"; * it was signed by the Minister of Interior and it had the same date as Annex A. The action taken by the Commander and the Minister was taken in pursuance of section 13

(2)of the Police Law, Cap. 285, as re-enacted by Law 29 of 1966, which reads as follows: 30 " The Commander, with the approval of the Minister, appoints, enlists, promotes and discharges all members of the Force up to and including the rank of Chief Inspector". Counsel for the applicants contended: 35 (

1. a)That Annex A does not contain decisions by the Commander in the matter of the permanent and temporary promotions and the acting appointments, but only a set of proposals made by him, in this connection, and See details of this letter at pp. 231-233 post. 225 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS that what was required, so that they could be approved by the Minister, were decisions, and not only mere proposals, by the Commander. i\y\ v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F [NTERIOR AND ANOTHER) (C) That the approval of the Minister was not duly reasoned. 5 That the Minister, when deciding whether to give his approval, ought to have had before him all the relevant material concerning each candidate entitled to be considered for promotion for any reason; and that there ought tohave been set out inAnnex Asufficient grounds 10 justifying the making of permanent or temporary promotions or of acting appointments, so that the Minister could validly give, in each case, his required approval under the relevant legislation. (
2. d)That there was nothing in Annex A to show that the 15 conditions envisaged by regulations 10* and 11*of the Police (General) Regulations, 1958 existed in relation to the making, respectively, of the temporary promotions and of the acting appointments; and that there ought to have been expressly stated in Annex A that 20 the candidates selected had been recommen ed by a Selection Board, as envisaged by the Appropriate Regulations. Held, (I) on contention (
3. a)above: That in deciding on the true nature of the letter of the Com- 25 mander of the Police to the Minister of Interior one should look at the essence and not the form; that on a fair reading of the contents of Annex A as a whole it becomes clear that the Commander informed thereby the Minister that he made up his mind to take a certain course of action and that he was seeking the 30 Minister's approval for the purpose; and that, accordingly, Annex A does not amount to a mere set of proposals, but it is cleaily a communication to the Minister for the approval, of decisions already reached by the Commander. Held, (II) on contention (
4. b)above: 35 That there does not exist any relevant legislative provision which prescribes that the approval of the Minister should be duly reasoned; that such approval does not seem to belong to any category of decisions, taken in the exercise of discretionary powers, which have to be duly reasoned; that reasoning regard- 40 Quoted at pp. 230-231 post. 226 5 10 15 ing a decision taken in the course of the exercise of the discretion of a hierarchically superior organ is really necessary when the decision of a subordinate organ is to be modified (see decision of the Council of State in Greece in Case 492/32); that this is . not what has happened in the present case; and that, in the absence of a specific legislative provision to that effect, no reasoning is required for the approval of an appointment even where such appointment has been make after one of the candidates has been selected for appointment instead of another. Per curiam: Even if it were to be held that the approval of the Minister had to be duly reasoned, then it can be safely said that the contents of Annex A do provide either expressly, or by inevitable implication, the reasons for which such approval was given; and it is well settled that the reasons for the approval of a decision can be found in the decision approved (see, inter alia, The Conclusions from the Case Law of the Council of State in Greece, 1929-1959, p. 185). Held, (III) with regard to contention (
5. c)above: 20 25 30 · 35 ,

(1)That it was not the task of the Minister to select himself, in the first instance, the most suitable candidates; that all that he had to do was to give his approval if he thought that the decisions of the Commander could properly be approved; that likewise, it was not for the Minister to decide himself, in the first instance, whether there existed sufficient grounds for making permanent or temporary promotions or acting appointments; that he had only to decide whether the relevant decisions, as made by the Commander, could properly be approved by him.

(2)That, moreover, in accordance with the presumption of regularity (see, inter alia, The Republic v. Ekkeshis,

(1975)3 C.L.R. 548, Michael (No. 2) v. The Republic,

(1975)3 C.L.R. 432), and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it must be assumed that the Minister of Interior did give his approval after considering all material aspects of the decisions to be approved, including the suitability of the candidates and the existence of grounds justifying the making of permanent or temporary promotions or acting appointments. Held, (IV) with regard to contention (d) above: 40

(1)That in his letter to the Minister—Annex A—the Commander did not have to set out in full all the material which, in his opinion,justified the decisions which by means of such letter 227 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS V. REPUBLIC (MINISTER Or INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS he placed before the Minister for approval, especially, because, as stated in paragraph 3 of Annex A, he had considered the "promotions" together with the Minister before writing to him about them; and for the same reason it was not necessary to refer inAnnex A toany recommendationsbya Selection Board. 5 v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) Order accordingly. Cases referred to: Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO)v. Boardof Cinemato• graphFilmsCensors andAnother

(1965)3 C.L.R. 27; Constantinides v. Republic

(1967)3 C.L.R. 7; 10 Decisions of the Greek Council ofState Nos.492/32and 845/71; Republic v. Ekkeshis

(1975)3 C.L.R. 548; Michael(No. 2) v. Republic

(1975)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourses. Recourses against the validity of the promotions, temporary 15 promotions and acting appointments of the interested parties to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Police Force of the Republic. L. Clerideswith P. Kouzoupis,for applicants in Cases Nos. 189/71-191/71, 224/71-225/71,227/71-229/
2. E. Liatsos, for applicant in Case No. 245/
3. 20 K. Saveriades, for applicant in Cases Nos. 237/71-238/71, E. Efstathiou, for applicant in Case No. I'iSjll M. Christofides, for applicant in Case No. 229/
4. L. Papaphilippou, for applicant in Case No. 240/
5. D. Papachrysostomou, for applicant in Cases Nos. 222/71- 25 223/
6. D. Demetriades, for applicant in Cases No. 172/
7. L. Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic, for the respondents in all cases. Cur. adv. vult. 30 The following decision was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, p.: By these recourses (and two others, Editor's note: All that the Court was concerned with, at present, was whether or not sufficient grounds appear to exist, metely on the basis of the contents of Annex A and of the approval by the Minister of Interior of the decisions set out in Annex A, so as to lead it to the conclusion that it should annul as invalid any of the subjudice promotions, temporary promotions or acting appointments; and for all the reasonswhich it has set out in this Decision it was not.satisfied that it should do so at this stage. 228 Nos. 226/71 and 230/71, which were withdrawn before this Decision was given)the applicants seek the annulment of pro : motions, temporary promotions and acting appointments made tothepost of Sub-Inspector in thePoliceForce oftheRepublic. 5 The recourses"have been heard together on common legal issues. The promotions, temporary promotions and acting appointmentscomplained of werepublished in thePoliceWeeklyOrders in April 1971, and the names of those concerned (to be referred 10 to hereinafter as the "interested parties") are, also, set out in a letter addressed by the Commander of Police to the Minister of interior on April 3, 1971(described as "Annex A" in theseproceedings). All the interested parties wereduly notified about the present 15 proceedings,but noneofthemistakingpart therein, onhisown, for the protection of his interests. In Annex A there appear the names of forty-five Police Sergeants who were promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector and (with the exception of four out of them) their promotions are 20 challenged by one or more of the applicants in these recourses; thereappear, also,thenames of eight Police Sergeantswhowere temporarily promoted to the said post; and, lastly, there appear thenamesoften PoliceSergeantswhoweregivenactingappointments to the post of Sub-Inspector; all the temporary promo25 tionsand acting appointments are challenged by one ormore of the applicants. In thecourse of theseproceedingsall theapplicants whohave attacked the acting appointment of Police Sergeant No. 216 A. Theophanous, declared their intention to discontinue their 30 recourses in sofar as his acting appointment isconcerned; also, theapplicants in casesNos.222/71and 223/71whohave attacked the temporary promotions of Police Sergeants No. 653 PI. Vassiliou, No. 1696D. Constantinides and No. 1707V. Loiza, and the permanent promotions of Police Sergeants No. 770 G. 35 Toumazou, No. 899 CI. Christophorou, No. 604 A. Papacharambous and No. 1576 A. Yiannaki, declared their intention to discontinue their recourses in so far as such interested parties are concerned. It is useful to refer, at this stage, to the relevant legislative 40 provisions which are subsections

(2)and

(3)of section 13of the 229 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) Police Law, Cap. 285, as re-enacted by the Police (Amendment) Law, 1966 (Law 29/66); they read as follows:"

(2)Ό 'Αρχηγός, τη έγκρίσει τοΰ Υπουργού, διορίζει, κατατάσσει, προάγει καΐ απολύει πάντα τα μέλη της Δυνά­ μεως μέχρι και συμπεριλαμβανομένου τοΰ Άρχιεπιθεωρητοΰ. 5

(3)Οϊ opot διορισμού, κατατάξεως, προαγωγής, υπηρε­ σίας καΐ απολύσεως μελών της Δυνάμεως προβλέπονται Οπό Κανονισμών γενομένων Οπό τοΰ Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου επί τη βάσει τοΰ παρόντος άρθρου καΐ δημοσιευομένων είς τήν έπίσημον εφημερίδα της Δημοκρατίας: 10 Νοείται ότι μέχρι της εκδόσεως των έν τω παρόντιέδαφίω προβλεπομένων Κανονισμών οί κατά την ήμερομηνίαν ενάρ­ ξεως Ισχύος τού παρόντος Νόμου έν ίσχύϊ Κανονισμοί καΐ Γενικαΐ ΔιατάΕεις θα έίακολουθήσωσιν εφαρμοζόμενοι." ( "

(2)The Commander, with the approval of the Mi- 15 nister, appoints, enlists, promotes and discharges all mem­ bers of the Force up to and including the rank of Chief Inspector.

(3)The conditions of appointment, enlistment, promo­ tion, service and discharge of members of the Force are 20 laid down in Regulations made by the Council of Mini­ sters under this section and published in the official Gazette of the Republic: Provided that until the making of the Regulations envisaged by this subsection the Regulations and General Orders in force at the time of the coming into 25 force of the present Law will continue to be applied"). The "Commander" is the respondent Commander of the Police and the "Minister" is the Minister of Interior. The Regulations referred to in the proviso to subsection

(3)above, are, inter alia,the Police (General) Regulations, 1958, and the Police (Promotion) Regulations, 1958. 30 Regulations 10 and 11 of the Police (General) Regulations, 1958, relate to temporary promotions and acting appointments, respectively, and their material parts—(subject to the necessary modifications entailed by Article 188 of the Constitution and 35 amendments of Cap. 285 effected by the Police (Amendment) Law, 1960 (Law 19/60), and the Police (Amendment) Law, 1964 (Law 21/64))—read as follows:" 10.

(1)A member of the Force who is required to perform 230 the duties of a higher rank may be promoted temporarily to that rank by the Commander: GEORGHIOS Provided t h a t - CHARALAMBOUS (

1. a)a vacancy exists in the rank; 5 1976 Aug. 30 (
2. b)in the case of Gazetted Officers such promotions are made with the approval of the Minister. AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) 10 11.

(1)A member of the Forcewho is required to perform the duties of a higher rank due to the temporary absence of the holder of that rank, may be appointed to act in the rank by the Divisional or Unit Commander: Provided t h a t (

1. a)all such appointments are made with the approval of the Commander; 15 (
2. b)notification is sent to Force Headquarters for the purposes of pay and maintaining records". Also, regulation 6

(3)of the Police (Promotion) Regulations, 1958, reads as follows:

(3)Notwithstanding anything in this Regulation con­ tained the Commander:- 20 25 (

1. a)may decide that members of the Force recom­ mended by the Board for advancement should attend a short promotion course; (
2. b)may promote any police officer who shows marked ability or exceptional aptitude for special work, irrespective of his length of service, and whether qualified by examination or not". The "Board" referred to above is the Select:on Board envi­ saged by regulation 4 of the same Regulations. As regards the factual aspect it is necessary to refer at some 30 length to the contents of the aforementioned letter of April 3, 1971 (Annex A):It is headed " Προαγωγαΐ είς τάς τάΣεις κατωτέρων Αξιω­ ματικών" ("Promotions to the ranks of-junior officers"). 231 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) At the very outset it is stated by the Commander of the Police that for the purpose of securing the necessary suitable super­ visory personnel, in order to fill existing gaps in the ranks of junior officers, he intends to promote those mentioned in respect of each category and that he is seeking accordingly the approval 5 of the Minister of Interior. There are then set out the names of forty-five Sergeants (including all the interested parties concern­
3. ed)under the heading " Ε!ς τον βαθμόν τοΰ Άνθυπαστυνόμου (ΚανονικαΙ προαγωγαΐ κατ* επιλογήν)" ("To the rank of SubInspector (Normal promotions after selection) " ). 10 Next, there are stated the names of another eight Sergeants (all interested parties) under the heading " Είς τον βαθμόν τοΰ Προσωρινού Άνθυπαστυνόμου" ( "To the rank of Temporary Sub—Inspector" ); there is a note above their names to the effect that their temporary promotions are subject to the condition 15 that before consideration of the possibility of their being pro­ moted exceptionally (" κατ' έϊίαίρεσιν"), they should pass the prescribed promotion examination within a period of two years; and opposite the name of each one of them there is stated his special qualification or special duties. After their 20 names there is another note to the effect that though, in most of the instances, there could have been applied regulation 6

(3)of the Police (Promotion) Regulations, enabling the making of promotions exceptionally, the Commander of the Police had deemed it fit to adopt the course of making temporary promo- 25 tions in order to oblige those so promoted to pass, at least, the academic part of the prescribed examination, so that they would be placed on an equal footing with the rest of their colleagues. Then, there follow the names of another ten Sergeants (all but one of them being interested parties); their names are pre- 30 ceded by a statement that it is intended to appoint them to the rank of Acting Sub-Inspector in order to fill certain further gaps. In paragraph 2 of Annex A it is stated that as soon as the "promotions" in question are announced there would follow transfers so that the officers concerned would be posted in suit­ able posts for the purpose of taking up duties pertaining to their new rank. In paragraph 3 the Commander states that he had had re­ cently the opportunity to consider with the Minister of Interior the proposed "promotions", but nevertheless he is ready to discuss further the case of any particular candidate and to place, 232 35 40 if necessary, at his disposal any documents relevant to"specific recommendations. Paragraph 4 refers to the matter of the supernumerary posts and it is stated, in this respect, that as the Minister knew, too, 5 theapproval in this respect of the Presidentof the Republichad already been secured. In theconcludingpart of Annex A itisexplained thatby virtue of the approval of theproposed promotionstherewillbe secured the necessary, for the proper functioning of the Force, super10 visory personnel, within the frame work provided for by the Budget; it is stated, also, that the vacancies in the rank of Ser­ geant have been filled and there are gradually being filled the remaining vacancies in the rank of Police Constable; and that such a course, undoubtedly, entails a proportionate increase in 15 the number of officers, so that the necessary control and super­ vision may be carried out effectively. All the promotions, temporary promotions, and acting ap­ pointments in question wereapproved by theMinister of Interi­ or, and his approval appears recorded at thevery end of Annex 20 A; it bears thesamedateasAnnex A; itisexpressed inoneword "Εγκρίνονται" ("Approved"); and it is signed by the, at the time, Minister of Interior. It hasbeen submitted onbehalf of theapplicants thatAnnexA does not contain decisions by the Commanderin the matter of 25 the permanent and temporary promotions and the acting ap­ pointments,but only a set of proposals madeby him,in this con­ nection, and that what was required, so that they could beap­ proved by the Minister, were decisions, and not only merepro­ posals, by the Commander. I cannotaccept this submission as 30 being well-founded; in deciding on the true nature of Annex Λ oneshould look attheessence and nottheform; andIamofthe view that on a fair reading of the contents of Annex A as a • whole it becomes clear that the Commander informed thereby theMinisterthathemadeuphismindtotakeacertaincourseof 35 action and that he was seeking the Minister's approval for the purpose; therefore, Annex A does not amount to a mere set of proposals, but it is clearly a communicationto the Minister, for his approval, of decisions already reached by theCommander. The next complaint of counsel for the applicants is that the 40 approval of the Minister was not duly reasoned: 233 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS A N D OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F INTERIOR A N D ANOTHER) 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC I agree that,as stated in, interalia,thetwo cases referred to by counsel for the applicants, namely Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO) v. Board of Cinematograph Films Censors and Another,

(1965)3 C.L.R. 27, and Constantinides v. TheRepublic,

(1967)3 C.L.R. 7, when due reasoning is required to be given 5 in relation to an administrative decision and such reasoning is absent then the decision concerned is defective. (MINISTER O F INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) But, in the first place, there does not exist any relevant le­ gislative provision which prescribes that the approval of the Minister should be duly reasoned; furthermore, such approval 10 does not seem to belong to any category of decisions, taken in the exercise of discretionary powers, which have to be duly reasoned (see, in this connection, The Conclusionsfrom the Case Law of the Council of State in Greece, 1929-1959, p. 184). Moreover, from the decision of the Council of State in Greece 15 in case 492/32 it is to be derived that reasoning regarding a de­ cision taken in the course of the exercise of the discretion of a hierarchically superior organ is really necessary when the de­ cision of a subordinate organ is to be modified; and this is not what has happened in the present case. Also, from the decision 20 of the same Council in case 845/71 it appears that, in the ab­ sence of a specific legislative provision to that effect, no reason­ ing is required for the approval of an appointment even where such appointmenthas been made after one of thecandidates has been selected for appointment instead of another. 25 In any case, even if I were to hold that the approval of the Minister had to be duly reasoned, then I think that it can be safely said that the contents of Annex A do provide either ex­ pressly, or by inevitable implication, the reasons for which such approval was given; and it is well settled that the reasons for the 30 approval of a decision can be found in the decision approved (see,inter alia, The Conclusionsfrom the Case Law of theCoun­ cil of State in Greece, 1929-1959, p. 185): It appears from the contents of Annex A that the permanentpromotions were made after selection ("κατ* επιλογήν") from amongst the eligible 35 candidates; and, actually, against the names of three of those so promoted it is expressly stated that their promotions were made exceptionally in view of special qualifications or duties; in re­ lation to the temporary promotions there are again stated in Annex A the special duties or qualifications which apparently 40 led to the selection of those temporarily promoted. There is, indeed,nothing stated in Annex A in relation to any oneof those 234 given acting appointments; but, I do think that whatever is statedinAnnexAinrelation toanydecision setoutinitmustbe read togetherwithitsparagraph 3,whereit isexpresslyrecorded that all the "promotions"—(and here, obviously, as elsewhere, 5 too, inAnnex A,theword "promotion" isused in a widesense, soas to include, also,an acting appointment)—were considered by the Commander together with the Minister; and it must, therefore, bepresumed that the Minister was duly satisfied that theycould beproperlymadebefore hedecided togivehisappro10 val. That is why I have stated earlier on that the contents of Annex A provide, either expressly or by inevitable implication, the reasons for the approval of the Minister. It has been contended by counsel for the applicants that the Minister, when deciding whether to give his approval, ought to 15 have had before him all the relevant material concerning each candidate entitled to be considered for promotion for any reason; and, also,that thereought tohave been setout in AnnexA sufficient groundsjustifying themaking ofpermanent ortemporary promotions or of acting appointments, sothat the Minister 20 could validly give,in each case, his required approval under the relevant legislation. 25 30 35 40 I am of the view that it was not the task of the Minister to selecthimself,in thefirstinstance,themost suitablecandidates; all that hehad to do was to givehis approval ifhethought that the decisions of the Commander could properly be approved. Likewise, it was not for the Minister to decide himself, in the first instance,whetherthereexisted sufficient groundsfor making permanent or temporary promotions or acting appointments; hehad onlytodecidewhethertherelevant decisions,asmadeby the Commander, could properly be approved by him. In this connection reference has to be made once again to paragraph 3 of Annex A wherein it is stated clearly that the "promotions" in question had been considered by the Commander together with the Minister, and it is a proper inference that on that occasion all relevant factors were taken into account (including other eligible candidates); it has to be borne in mind, in this respect, that the Commander stated in paragraph 3that hewas ready to discuss further with the Minister the case of any individual candidate and to place, if necessary, at his disposal any documents relevant to particular recommendations. Moreover, in accordance with the presumption of regularity (see, interalia,TheRepublic v. Ekkeshis,

(1975)3 C.L.R. 548, 235 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) 1976 Aug. 30 GEORGHIOS CHARALAMBOUS AND OTHERS v. REPUBLIC (MINISTER O F INTERIOR AND ANOTHER) Michael (No. 2) v. TheRepublic,

(1975)3C.L.R. 432), and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, I must assume that the Minister of Interior did give his approval after considering all material aspects of the decisions to be approved, including the suitability of the candidates and the existence of groundsjustifying the making of permanent or temporary promotions or acting appointments. 5 Two other submissions of counsel for the applicants were, first, that there isnothing in Annex Ato showthat the conditions envisaged by the relevant Regulations (regulations 10 and 11) 10 existed in relation to the making, respectively, of the temporary promotions and of the acting appointments, and, secondly, that there ought to have been expressly stated in Annex A that the candidates selected had been recommended by a Selection Board, as envisaged by the appropriate Regulations. 15 I do not agree that in his letter to the Minister—Annex A— the Commander had to set out in full all the material which, in his opinion, justified the decisions which by means of such letter he placed before the Minister for approval, especially, because, as stated in paragraph 3 of Annex A, he had considered the 20 "promotions" together with the Minister before writing to him about them; and for the same reason I do not think that it was necessary to refer in Annex A to any recommendations by a Selection Board. Of course, whether or not in any individual case there did 25 exist the prerequisites rendering valid the promotion, temporary promotion or acting appointment of the interested party concerned is not a matter which has to, or can, be decided, at this stage of the proceedings, by this interim Decision; this is a matter to be decided later, after the hearing on the merits of these 30 cases. All that I was concerned with, at present, was whether or not sufficient grounds appear to exist, merely on the basis of the contents of Annex A and of the approval by the Minister of Interior of the decisions set out in Annex A, so as to lead me to the conclusion that I should annul as invalid any of the sub 35 judice promotions, temporary promotions or acting appointments; and for all the reasons which I have already set out in this Decision I am not satisfied that I should do so at this stage. Consequently, these cases should proceed to be heard on their merits. Order accordingly. 236 40