clr/1980/1980_3_85.pdf

(1)of the Central Bank of Cyprus Employees' (Conditionsof Service) Regulations, 1964, notsufficient by itself to lead to annulment of subjudice promotions. Public Officers—Promotions—Head of Department—Recommenda­ tions—Promotions to the post of Officer Grade I in the Central ~ Bank of Cyprus—Based on oral views of Governor of the Bank which were not recorded in the relevant minutes—Annulled for absence of due reasomng. Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Reasoning— Due reasoning—Clear and adequate reasons should be given in order to enable Court to ascertain whether or not decision is well founded infact and in law—Especially regarding decisions taken by collective organs which are unfavourable to the subject—Public Officers—Promotions to thepost of Officer Grade I in the Central Bank of Cyprus—Based, inter alia, on oral views of Governor of Bank which were not recorded in the relevant minutes—Court not in a position to ascertain whether sub judice decision wellfounded infact and in law—Annulledfor lack of due reasoning. The applicantsinthese recourses challenged thedecision of the respondent Central Bank to promote Kyriacos Bagdades and Spyros Stavrou( " t h e interested parties") to the post of Officer Grade I. The promotions complained of were made by the 85 Eleftheriou & Others τ. Central Bank

(1980)Governor of the Bank in accordance with the advice of the Personnel Committee established under section 15

(3)* of the Central Bank of Cyprus Law, 1963 (Law 48/63). According to the minutes of the Personnel Committee the Governor placed before them the list of all officers Grade 5 II, their confidential reports and a record showing their academic, professional or other qualifications, previous appoint­ ments held with the Bank, experience at the Bank and previous employment. He, also, reported to the Personnel Committee his own viewsonthevarious candidates,as aresult of the discus- \Q sions he had on the work of the candidates with each Manager or other reporting officer and the Committeeconcluded that on thebasisof merit,experience andqualifications thetwo interested parties should be appointed. The relevant extract from the minutes of the Committee reads as follows: 15 " It was decided that in view of the Attorney-General's advice of 22.11.1973 both appointments be made on a temporary basis with effect from 13th August and that Kyriakos Bagdades should be appointed to the vacant post of Officer Grade I while Spyros Stavrou be appointed 20 to the supernumerary post to be created under regulation 10 in view of a vacancy in the post of Manager ". Counsel for the applicants mainly contended:

(1)That the act or decision of the Personnel Committee was taken in excess or in abuse of powers in that, contrary to 25 regulation 12

(1)** of the Central Bank of Cyprus Employees' (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964, the confidential reports of the candidates were not prepared annually for the last three years but they were piepared three days before the promotions were made. 30

(2)That the subjudicedecision was not duly reasoned. Held,

(1)that though the delay for a period of three years to prepare the confidential reports of the candidates, is in direct conflict both with regulation 12

(1)and with the protection of the legitimate interests of the candidates, once the confidential Quoted at p. 91 post. Regulation 12

(1)reads as follows: "Every Manager or, in his absence, the Section Head of the Bank, shall submit to the Governor annually on a special form confidential appraisal reports on every employee in their department or section, who has been confirmed in his post". 86 35 C.L.R. 5. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Eleftheriou & Others v. Centra) Bank reports play an important role to the promotion of a candidate, having regard to the particular circumstances of this case the delay in question is not sufficient by itself to lead to the annulment of the decision of the Personnel Committee; and that. accordingly, contention

(1)must fail.

(2)That it is one of the concepts of administrative law that decisions must be duly reasoned, which in effect means that clear and adequate reasons must be given, especially in cases of decisions taken by collective organs, to enable the Court to know why the administration has taken that stand and why one officer was preferred instead of others; that this is essential when a decision is unfavourable to the subject, and because in the absence of such reasons, the Court is unable to ascertain whether .the decision complained of iswell-founded in fact and in accordance with the law; that though in this case it is stated in the , relevant minutes of the Personnel Committee that the Governor has reported to the Committee his own views on the various candidates there is nothing at all in such minutes to show what were these views and what was actually the discussion which has taken place in order to enable this Court to decide why the two candidates were preferred instead of the applicants; that, therefore, the sab judice decision was not duly reasoned; and that, accordingly, it must be annulled. (Partellides v. The Republic •

(1969)3 C.L.R. 480 at p. 484 and Bagdades v. The Central Bank of Cyprus

(1973)3 C.L.R. 417 at pp. 428-429 followed). Sub judice decision annulled. Cases referred to: Theodossiou v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 44; Bagdades v. The Central Bank of Cyprus

(1973)3 C.L.R. 417 at pp. 428^129; Partellides v. The Republic

(1969)3 C.L.R. 480 at p. 484; Kyprianou and Others (No. 2) v. The Republic

(1975)3 C.L.R. 187. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to promote the interested parties to the post of Officer Grade I, in the Central Bank of Cyprus, in preference and instead of the applicants. P. Ioannides, for the applicants. R. Gavrielides, Counsel·of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 87 Eleftherioa & Others τ. Central Bank

(1980)HADJIANASTASSIOU J. read the following judgment. In these three consolidated recourses, each applicant seeks a declaration of this Court that the act and/or decision of the Central Bank of Cyprus issued on 12th August, 1976, promoting the two interested parties, Messrs. Kyriacos Bagdades and Spyros Stavrou tothepost of Officer GradeIis null andvoid and of no effect whatsoever. 5 The facts are these:The first applicant, Iordanis Eleftheriou, was appointed in December 1966—January 1968 to the post of Economist 10 upgraded and from January 1968—today to the post of Officer Grade II. His qualifications as they appear on the listfiled before the Court are these:- Hegraduated the Samuels Com­ mercial School of Nicosia, the North Western Polytechnic London (1956-57), the University College London B. Sc. Econ. 15 (Internal Student) (1960-1965) and attended an I.M.F. course of FinancialAnalysis and Policy in U.S.A. (August 70-January 71). The second applicant, Georghios Thomas, was appointed in the bank on a casual basis from 9.12.1973-31.5.1975 and from 1.6.1975until today tothepost of Officer Grade II. His qualifi­ cations are these:- Hegraduated the Pancyprian Gymnasium, the Carroll College U.S.A. (B. Sc. Econ); the University of California (M.A. Econ.); and University of California (Ph. D. Economics (UCLA)). The third applicant, Georghios Mavroudis was appointed to the same post in April, 1970, and he is the holder of these qualifications: A graduate of the Pancyprian Gymnasium; the Athens Graduate School of Economics and Business (Economic section); University College London M.Sc.Econ. 30 (Studyleavepay);I.M.F.course of FinancialAnalysisandPolicy U.S.A. The applicants, feeling aggrieved because of the promotion of the two interested parties,filedseparate recourses; applicants 1 & 2on the26th October, 1976,and applicant No. 3onthe8th 35 February, 1977. In support of their applications, all three applicantsfiledthe samegrounds of law;

(1)that theactand/or decision attacked in these recourses were taken contrary to section 15of the CentralBank of CyprusLaw, 1963(Law 48/63); and/or incontravention of theRegulations and/orinexcessorin 40 88 20 25 3 C.L.R. Eleftheriou & Others v. Central Bank Hadjmnaslassiou J. abuse of their powers; because (a)the respondents have failed to publish the post of Officer Grade I, a practice followed always and which was necessary for the choice of the most eligible officers to the post in question; (b) that the confidential reports 5 of thelast threeyears regarding thecandidates had been prepared without due consideration and in a hurry, three days before the decision was taken. In accordance with regulation 12

(1)the confidential reports are prepared annually. In view of the non preparation of the confidential reports in thetime specified in the 10 regulations thejust and fair judgment of the candidates was not possible; (c) the respondents have failed to choose the most suitable candidates for promotion and/or appointment to the post of Officer Grade I, particularly regarding the applicants whose qualifications, experience and ability are much superior 15 to those who have been promoted

(2)the respondents have failed to carry out an enquiry with regard to the qualifications, experience and ability of the candidates in order to choose the most suitable person lor thefilling of the posts in question; and

(3)that the acts or decision of the respondent attacked in this 20 recourse lack sufficient and/or legal reasoning. 25 30 35 40 On 26th February, 1977, counsel appearing on behalf of tho applicants, in support of his legal grounds (I) (c) and 2 gave more reasons, viz., that the respondents have failed to exercise and/or to exercise properly their duty regarding the choice of the most able candidates for promotion in accordance with the legal proposition which has been established in the case of Michael Theodosiouv. The Republic of Cyprus, 2 R.S.C.C. 44; and

(2)that the respondents have failed to carry out a proper enquiry with regard to the qualifications, experience and ability of the candidates and have failed to take the views of the Heads of the Departments under whom candidates have been working and in accordance with regulation 12 of the Central Bank of Cyprus Employees' (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964, the confidential reports of the last three years have not been prepared and they were prepared in a hurry a few days before the said decision was taken in order to show that the decision was made in a lawful manner. On 28th April, 1977, counsel appearing for the respondent bank opposed the application on the following ground οf law, which is identical in all three applications:-That the decision complained of was lawfully taken after full and careful conside89 Hadjianastassiou J. Eleftheriou & Others v. Central Bank

(1980)ration of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case and in the proper exercise of the discretionary powers vested in the respondent. The facts relied upon in the opposition are these:On 29th July, 1976, the Personnel Committee of the Central 5 Bank of Cyprus, decided to fill the vacancies in the post of Officer Grade I, Central Bank. The Committee further decided that the vacancies need not be advertised and that in the first instance the Committee should consider filling the vacancies from amongst officers serving in the post of Officer Grade II. 10 On 12th August, 1976, the Governor of the Central Bank placed befoie the Committee the list of names of all Officers Grade II, their confidential reports, and a record showing, inter alia, the following:- Academic, professional or other qualifications, previous appointments held with the bank, experience at the bank and previous employment. 15 According to an extract from the minute of the Personnel Committee, the Governor reported also to the Committee his own views on the various candidates, as a result of the discussions he had on the work of the candidates with each Manager or other reporting officer. The Committee concluded that on the basis of merit, experience and qualifications of the candidates the following should be promoted in the order listed: Kyriakos Bagdades Spyros Stavrou In the extract from the minutes of the Personnel Committee it is stated that: "It was decided that in view of the AttorneyGeneraFs advice of 22.11.73 both appointments be made on a temporary basis with effect from 13th August and that Kyriakos Bagdades should be appointed to the vacant post of Officer 30 Grade IwhileSpyros Stavrou beappointed to the supernumerary post to be created under Regulation 10 in view of a vacancy in the post of Manager." The functions of the Governor relating to the officers and employees of the bank appear in s. 15

(2)of Law 48/63 which 35 says that:" Without prejudice to the generality of subsection

(1)the Governor shall, subject to any Law in force for the time being and in accordance with regulations relating to the 90 20 25 3 C.L.R. Eleftheriou & Others v. Central Bank Hndjianastassiou J. officers and employees of the Bank made under this Law, appoint, suspend or dismiss any officer or employee of the Bank other than officers or employees in respect of whom other provision is made in this Law." 5 10 And under subsection

(3):" The Governor in carrying out any of his functions under subsection

(2)shall act in accordance with the advice of a Committee established for the purpose and consisting of himself as Chairman, the Deputy Governor, one director nominated by the Board in this respect, the Minister's Representative and one other person nominated by the Board inthisrespecttohold office foraperiod of twoyears, unless earlier removed by the Governor." In exercise of the powers vested in it by paragraph (b) of 15 subsection

(2)of ss. 13and 14and by subsection

(2)and

(3)of section 17of the Central Bank of Cyprus Law, 1963,the Board of Directors,onthe recommendation ofthe Governor, madethe Central Bank of Cyprus Employees' (Conditions of Service") Regulations, 1964. 20 According to the interpretation section " Personnel Committee", means the Committee established under s. 15

(3)of the Central Bank of Cyprus Law 1963, and regulation 11, provides that "promotions of employees will be made on the basis of merit, experience and qualifications." 25 Regulation 12

(1)provides that:" Every Manager or, in his absence, the Section Head of the Bank, shall submit to the Governor annually on a special form confidential appraisal reports on every employee in their department or section, who has been confirmed in his post. 30 35

(2)Every Manager or, in his absence, the Section Head of theBank, shall submit to theGovernor six-monthly, on a special form confidential appraisal reports on every employee in their department or section, who is on probation. Thelastsix-monthly report willbesubmitted fourteen days before the employee is due for confirmation.

(3)In theevent ofa report being unsatisfactory inrespect of the services of any employee, the employee shall be informed in time." 91 Hadjianastassiou J. Eleftheriou & Othersv.CentralBank

(1980)Turningnowtothequalifications ofthetwointerestedparties, it appears that Kyriakos Bagdades attended the Gymnasium of Lapithos in 1947-1948;heattended the English High Schoolof Kyrenia from 1948-1951 and the Nicosia Institute for the year 1951-1952. It appears further that hehaspassed G.C.E. exams 5 in English Ordinary, English Higher, Turkish Lower, Maths A, Maths B, Geography, L.C.C. exams in Elementary Bookkeeping, Intermediate Book-keeping; Accounting Higher; and finally the Institute of Bankers Diploma and B. Sc. Econ. (external student). Spyros Stavrou has graduated the Famagusta Gymnasium and City of Westminster College. He has passed G.C.E. Exams Greek Ordinary, English Language Ordinary, British Constitution Advance level,British Economic History Advance, Economics Advance. He has attended the University of 15 London for a period of three years (1964-1967) for a B. Sc. Economics (external student); the University of Stockholm, M.Sc.Econ. for 1967-1969;and has taken an I.M.F. courseon Balance of Payments Methodology, U.S.A. According to the scheme of service of Officer Grade I the 20 duties and responsibilities of the post are: To be responsible for the proper functioning of a section ofadepartment, and/or assist inthesupervision ofadepartment. Toundertake studies, research work, examination of banks and similar tasks, analyse economic and other data and to submit reports and recom- 25 mendations for the formulation of policies. To perform any other duties which may be assigned to him. And the qualifications required are: (

1. a)To hold an appropriate university degree preferably in economics; (
2. b)to be a person of sound judgment, tactful, have administrative abilities and capable of 30 assuming responsibilities; (c)to haveability to draft reports on economic and related subjects; (
3. d)to have a very good knowledge of Greek and English or Turkish and English. It should beadded that inaccordance with thegeneralconditionsof theschemesof serviceunder Vand VIthequalifications 35 specified under each grade or post are the minimum required for appointment. Appropriate additional or higher qualifications will be considered as an advantage. Academic or professional qualifications of an equivalent standard to those specificallyprescribed for a post maybeaccepted. Whatarequalifica- 40 tionsofanequivalent standard orwhatareappropriate qualifica92 10 3 CX.R. Eleftheriou &Othersτ.CentralBank Hadjlanastassiou J. tions or experience (if prescriptions to that effect-are made for a post)willbedecidedby theCommittee setupundersection 15 of the Central Bank of Cyprus Law. According to the confidential appraisal reports, the nature of 5 duties of Kyriakos Bagdades were examination of banks and related duties. In the year 1973 the Reporting Officer Mr. A.J.' Philippou reported as follows: "Quantity of work:· Very satisfactory in quality and quantity. Heis a knowledgeable person inmatters 10 relating to bank supervision. .He has a good knowledge of banking and accounting. His studies in Economicswill widen his general background. He likes to be given initiative in his work. He can be trusted to usehis initiative properly. Hisjud­ gment is generally reliable and sound. Heis a verycompetent 15 officer, very fit for theduties of bank examiner. Hehas also a goodanalytical brain. Hisonlydrawback perhaps is his tendency to be rather obstinate. The clarity of his expression could also improve. Onthewhole Ihaveno doubtthathewillbea serious candidate for promotion to Grade I in future." For the year 20 1974 the same Officer had this to say: "Quantity and quality of work: Very satisfactory. His knowledge on subjects bearing on his duties is very good. He is keen to widen his knowledge through his studies for the B. Sc. (Econ.) degree. He likes to take theinitiative. He"does notrequire supervision 25 in his work and can be trusted to carry but his duties with the minimum of instructions. Hisjudgment is quite reliable. He is an intelligent person. He is definitely a person who has potential for further development. He could be a serious candidate for Grade I post. His background at the Bank has' 30 involved himinavariety of duties,· and Ibelieve hehas benefited from this."For theyear 1975his reportingofficer states:"During the'period he spent in this Departmenthe performed his duties to my full satisfaction. .He is conscientious, intelligent and reliable. I believe he could be entrusted with duties of-greater 35 responsibility. As mentionedin previous reports, he should be a candidatefor promotion to Grade I." Finally theGovernor of theBank on the 11th August, 1976, had this to say:- 40 " This officer was directly responsible to me from August 1975 to date. Though no assessment report has to be submitted under Reg. 12for this period, I wish to placeon record the following:93 Hadjianastassiou J. Eleftherioa &Others v.Central Bank

(1980)Mr. Bagdades performed his duties to my entire satisfaction—indeed at a level in terms of quality beyond my expectations for an officer of this grade. The quantity and quality of his work was excellent. He was able to tackle problems in general fields. 5 He has shown considerable initiative and has been able to develop his own ideas on tackling a problem. He is very intelligent and of sound judgment. It is fair to say that he has created some antagonism amongst his seniors. This may be partly due to the nature 10 of his duties and partly to a minor flaw in his character— lack of tact in putting his point of view—perhaps due to a forceful personality. However, even in this respect I found that he has now considerably improved. I haveno hesitation in recommending him for promotions to the post of Officer Grade I." 15 With regard to the second interested party Spyros Stavrou the nature of his duties were these:- To follow and analyse developments in the sectors of balance of payments and public finance. Furthermore to follow the developments with regard 20 to the reform of the international monetary system and the relations of Cyprus with the I.M.F. The Reporting Officer made the following remarks for the year 1973:- "Quantity and quality of work: good. He has a good theoretical background; satisfactory initiative; good 25 judgment. His work isreliable and he hasa good drafting. He needs the minimum of supervision." His Reporting Officer made this report:- "Mr. Stavrou has a good back-ground in Economics which he utilizes in his work. He is conscientious and he can work with little supervision, whereas the quality of 30 his work is good. He exercises good judgment. Mr. Stavrou will be a serious contester in any future promotion." For 1974 this report was made by the same Officer :" The quantity and quality of his work isgood. He has a good academic background and knowledge of Economics. His 35 initiative is above average and he has good judgment. Mr. Stavrou is a reliable officer of a good standard performing his duties with little supervision. I recommend him for any future promotions to Grade I." 94 3 C.L.R. Eleftheriou &Othersv.Central Bank Hadjianastassiou J. Andfinallyfor 1975this report wasmade:- " The standard of hiswork isgood both in terms of quantity and quality. He hasa good academicbackground, his initiative isaboveaverage and he has good judgment. Mr. Stavrou has always been a 5 reliableofficer whocontinuously triestoimprove. Hisstandard is good and he works with minimum of supervision. I recommend him as a first choice for promotion to Officer Grade I (Senior Economist). Withregardtoapplicant GeorgeThomashehadthe following 10 duties: Specialstudiesanddevelopment ofafilingandretrieval system for IMF documents, and follow-up of IMF activities. The Reporting Officer made this report on the year 1974: "Quantity and quality ofwork: good; hehasa good academic background, satisfactory initiative, satisfactory judgment. Mr.. 15 Thomas is a hardworking officer with a good academic know? ledge. He has a tendency, however, to be somewhat inflexible and difficult to co-operate with others." For the year 1975 thefollowingreportwasmade: "Quantityandqualityofwork: good. He has a good academic background and knowledgeof 20 Economics, satisfactory initiative and judgment. Mr. Thomas isa hardworking officer and hiswork isgenerally of satisfactory standard. He has a tendency to be over-critical. His cooperation with others is improving." With regard to applicant Iordanis Eleftheriou the nature of 25 hisdutiesincludesmattersandproblemsfor implementingTrade and Payments Agreements with clearing countries. Formulation of spot and forward exchange rates and problems and transactions related to these topics. Following through the F/N MID and other media, financial and economic develop30 ments thus forming a background assisting the implementation of any duties. Testing messages. Taking up dutues of other officers when they are away from the bank. Destruction and cancellation of currencies." In 1973 the following report was made: "Quantity and quality of work good; knows own and 35 . related jobs; his initiative is good when deviated from routine and he has good common sense. His performance is satisfactory." For the years 1974 and 1975 the same report was made. The nature of the duties of Georghios Mavroudis were the 40 following: • "Research work with special emphasis on problems inthemonetary field." In 1973theReporting Officer madethe following general assessment and recommendation: "Mr. 95 Hadjianastassiou J. Eleftheriou & Others v. Central Bank

(1980)Mavroudis has successfully completed his M. Sc.course and he hasnow a good background ineconomicswhich isvery helpful inthedischargeofhisduties. Hisworkisofgoodstandardand so is his judgment while he needs little supervision. Mr. Mavroudis would also be a serious contester in any future 5 promotions." In 1974 this report was made: "Quantity and quality of work is good, though he tends sometimes to be slow and not to double-check his statements. He has a good academic background and knowledge of Economics, average initiativeandgoodjudgment. Thestandard ofhisworkisgood, 10 though he may on occasions not pay particular attention to the presentation aspect of his reports. He works with little supervision. He should be considered in any future promotions." And for 1975 this report was made: "Though his standard is generally good his reports sometimes suffer from poor presenta- 15 tion. He has a good academic background, average initiative and goodjudgment. I am generally satisfied with his standard of work and the little need for supervision. He needs to pay some more attention to the presentation side of his report. I would recommend him for the second Grade I post." 20 There is no doubt that the Personnel Committee in effecting appointments or promotions isbound to selectthemost suitable candidate for the particular post, having regard to the totality of circumstances pertaining to each one of the qualified candidates, including length of service which, though a factor to be 25 considered is not always the exclusive vital criterion for such appointment or promotion. Indeed the Personnel Committee should take seriously into consideration the recommendations of a head of department or other senior responsible officer, especially where specialized knowledge and ability are required 30 and this is a most vital consideration which should not be disregarded lightly. I would further add that if the recommendation couldnot beacted uponbytheappointing bodythen, as the authorities of this Court show, the Head of Department, or any other responsible officer should be invited to explain his 35 views before the said body. If, nevertheless, the appointing body still feels that it can not act on such recommendation the reasons for not so acting should beclearly and lucidly recorded in the minutes of the appointing body for the protection of the legitimate interest of the candidates concerned. 40 Counsel for the applicants mainly argued in support of his legalgroundsthat theactordecisionofthePersonnelCommittee 96 3 C.L.R. Eleftheriou &Othersv.Central Bank Hadjianastassiou J. was taken in excess or in abuse of powers, and that in spite of regulation 12

(1)of thesaid Regulations the confidential reports of the candidates were not prepared annually for the last three years; indeed counsel further argued that those reports were 5 prepared in a hurry by the Manager or one of,the assistants three days before the promotions were made and in doing so they acted inexcessor inabuse ofpowers,because due to lapse of time, they wereunable to assess the work of each individual officer impartially and correctly. On the contrary counsel for 10 the respondents very fairly indeed conceded that the failure of the Manager or his assistant to prepare the confidential reports is clearly a violation of regulation 12

(1)which lays down that those reports should be prepared every year, but he submitted that once the reports werefinallysubmitted they ought to be 15 used because it was too late to adopt another stand. Finally counsel argued that the Court had no alternative but to look at themandconsidertheirweightintheparticular circumstances ofthiscase. Indeedcounselfor theapplicantsinreplyadmitted or conceded that the mere violation of regulation 12

(1)wasnot 20 sufficient byitself toannul thesaiddecision oncethereportshad to be prepared once again by the same people and for thesame years. Butheargued theweight of those reports in thecircumstancesofthiscaseisdiminishedbecausethereportsareprepared to evaluate the work of eachcandidate when the facts are fresh 25 in the mind of the Reporting Officer. I have considered very carefully the arguments and I find myselfinagreementwithbothcounselthat thedelayfor aperiod of three years to prepare the confidential reports of the candidates, is in direct conflict both with regulation 12

(1)and with 30 the protection of the legitimate interest of the candidates concerned, once the confidential reports playan important part with regard to the promotion of a candidate. Regretfully as it is,however, Ihavenoalternative and Iagree that havingregard to the particular circumstances of this case I do not think that 35 the failure to prepare the confidential reports within the time limits set out by regulation 12

(1)is sufficient by itself to annul the decision of the Personnel Committee. Thenext complaint of counsel was that the respondents have failed to carry out a full inquiry as to the qualifications of each 40 candidate and indeed have failed to point out in their decision in exhibit8 full and sufficient reasons why the two interested parties were preferred, in order to enable the Court, in the 97 Hadjianastasslou J. Eleftheriou & Others v. Central Bank

(1980)interest of justice, to protect the legitimate interest of serving candidates. Indeed, counsel appearing for the respondent, in a very constructive argument, and relying on the decision of Kyriakos G. Pagdades v. The Central Bank of Cyprus,

(1973)3 C.L.R. 417, contended that the decision of the Personnel Committee lacks due reasoning, and because of the observations made in Bagdades case, this Court, once it isconvinced that due reasoning is absent, is entitled to annul the administrative decision. 5 Time and again, it wassaid that the administration mustgive 10 reasons toenabletheCourtto knowwhyit hastaken that stand, and why one officer was preferred instead of others. In the absence of a definite statement to that effect which ought to appear in the minutes, theCourt cannot really surmisewhatwas the decisive factor which weighed in some cases and less in 15 others,as thecase maybe. Butontheother hand, ifthecourse of study, as a result of which a diploma was obtained goes beyond what is required for the efficient discharge of the duties of a particular post, in myview, once all candidates possess the academic qualifications required for the post in question, that 20 reason alone should not weigh so greatly in the mind of the appointing authorities, and in selecting the most suitable candidates, should seeall the circumstances appertaining to each one of the candidates. It is said and rightly so,with respect, that it is one of the concepts of administrative law that decisions must 25 be duly reasoned, and which in effect means, that clear and adequate reasons must begiven, especially in cases of decisions taken by collective organs. Indeed, this is essential when a decision is unfavourable to the subject, and because in the absenceofsuch reasons,theCourt isunabletoascertain whether 30 thedecisioncomplained ofiswell-founded infact andinaccordance with the law. That the decision isnot duly reasoned, has not been seriously challenged,as I have said earlier,and reading from the decision of the Personnel Committee, the Governor has reported to the 35 committee his own views on the various candidates. But the question iswhat were those oral views? There isnothing at all in the minutes to show what were his own views and what was actually the discussion which has taken place in order to enable theCourt to decidewhy thetwocandidateswerepreferred tothe 40 the others. 98 3 C.L.R. Eleftheriou & Others v. Central Bank Hadjianastassiou J· In Costas D. Partellidesv. The Republic (Public Service Commission),

(1969)3 C.L.R. 480, Triantafyllides, J., (as he then was), delivering the Judgment of the Full Bench, dealt with recommendations made orally at a meeting of the Commission, 5 and had this to say at p. 484:- 10 15 20 " ... we have, indeed, noted a general statement, in the relevant minutes of the Respondent, that the decisions as to the promotions concerned—including the sub judice one—were reached bearing in mind, inter alia, the 'recommendations* of Mr. Hadjioannou (which were made orally at the particular meeting of the Respondent on the 3rd July, 1968); but, in the opinion of the Court, without these recommendations being adequately recorded in the said minutes, so as to enable this Court to examine how and why it was reasonably open to the Respondent to act upon them, notwithstanding the greater seniority of the Appellant and the equally good confidential reports, such a general statement in the minutes of the Respondent, as aforesaid, cannot have the effect of rendering the promotion of Interested Party Gregoriades one which can be treated as having been properly decided upon in the exercise of the particular powers of the Respondent." In Kyriakos G. Bagdades (supra), dealing with the question of the absence of due reasoning, I had this to say at pp. 42825 429:- 35 35 40 " The next question which is posed is whether the decision of the Governor to appoint the interested party is duly reasoned. Regarding this point, I think I ought to reiteiate what I said in Papazachariou v. The Republic,

(1972)3 C.L.R. 486, that due reasoning must be more strictly observed in the case of a decision having been taken by a collective organ, and particularly when such decision is unfavourable to the subject. The whole object, of course, of such rule is to enable the person concerned as well as the Court, on review, to ascertain in each particular case whether the decision is well-founded in fact and in accordance with the law. HadjiSavva v. The Republic

(1972)3 C.L.R. 174. Having considered the arguments of both counsel and inview of the fact that one of the concepts of administrative 99 Hadjianastassioo J. Eleftheriou & Others v. Central Bank

(1980)law is that administrative decisions must be duly reasoned, that must be clearly read as meaning that proper adequate reasons must be given. The reasons that are set out m the decision of the Committee whether they are right or wrong, ought to have been reasons which not only would 5 be intelligible, but also can reasonably be said to deal with the substantive points raised, i.e. why the interested party wasprefened and what wete the other relevantfactors which weighed so much in the mind of the Committee in preferring the interested party instead of the applicant who, as I said 10 earlier, had a longer service with the bank. In the absence of those reasons, in reviewing the said decision, I am unable to ascertain whether the decision is well-founded in fact and m accordance with the law, and in the light of this finding that the said decision isnot duly reasoned, exeicising 15 my powers under Article 146, I would declare that such decision or act isnull and void and ofno effect whatsoever." See also Pantehs Kypnanou and Others (No. 2) v. The Republic, (P.S.C.),

(1975)3 C.L.R. 187 on the question of clarity in the minutes of proceedings of an administrative organ. 20 For the reasons I have given at length, and in the fight of the particular facts of this case, and having regard to the authorities quoted earlier in this judgment, I have reached the conclusion that the decision of the Personnel Committee was not duly reasoned, and I have no alternative but to annul the administra- 25 tive act once the said Committee lias acted m abuse or in excess of their powers. In the paiticular circumstances of tins case, I make no order as to costs. Decision annulled, no order as to costs. Sub judice decision annulled. No 30 order as to costs. 100