1984 September 29 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION KYRIACOS TSANGARIDES AND OTHERS, Applicants, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR AND OTHERS, Respondents. (C<tt«Mw. 245/81,246/81). 5 Natural justice—Rules of—Police Force—Promotions—Applicants not promoted because respondents took into account information regarding their behaviour during the abortive coup d'etat of the \5th July, 1974—Nothing before the Court indicating source of such information—And applicants not apprised of such in formation and not given the opportunity to refute it—Rules of natural justice violated—Sub judice promotions annulled. 15 Following a recourse by the applicants the Supreme Court annulled the decision of the respondents to promote to the rank of Sergeant,in the Police Fire Service, eleven other persons in stead oftheapplicants. Theannulmentwas based onthe ground that there ought not to have been taken into account, in the manner in which this was done, reports of the Central Informa tion Service (ΚΥΡ) regarding doubts that existed about the loyalty of the applicants. 20 Though in re-examining the matter the respondents ignored the reports of ΚΥΡ about the loyalty of the applicants, they took into account information leading them to the conclusion that the personal reputation of the applicants had been diminished because of their behaviour during the abortive coup 10 1525 Tsangarides and Others v. Republic
(1934)d'etat of the 15th July 1974; and it was quite clear that this factor was an essential and decisive reason for deciding not to promote the applicants. Upon a recourse against the latter decision there was nothing before the Court indicating the source of the aforesaid information and applicants were not apprised of such information and vrere not given the opportunity to refute it. 5 Held, that the applicants were excluded from consideration for purposes of promotion in a manner contrary to the rules of natural justice and, consequently, the sub judice promotions 10 of the interested parties-instead of the applicants—have to be annulled. Sub judice decision annulled. Cases referred t o : Tsangarides and Others v. Republic
(1981)3 C.L.R. 117; 15 Komodikis v. Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 81 at pp. 82-87; Haviaras v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 159 at pp. 165-169; Haviaras v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1345 at pp. 1347-
- Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondents to promote the interested parties lo the rank of Sergeant in the Police Fire Service in preference and instead of the applicants. 20 S. Spyridakis, for the applicant in case No. 245/
- A. Ladas, for the applicants in case No. 246/
- A. Vassiliadesy for the respondents. 25 Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourses, which were heard together in view of their nature, the applicants are challenging the decision of the respondents, which was published in the Police Weekly 30 Orders (Part II, N o . 237) on the 11th May 1981, to promote to the rank of Sergeant in the Police Fire Service, as from the 1526 3 C.L.R. 5 Tsangarides and Others v. Republic Triantafyllides P. 1st May 1979, instead of the applicants, eleven other persons, namely P. Karadjias, K. Panayides, G. Pisharas, S. Sophocli, A. Theodorou, N. Andreou, Chr. Schizas, N. Georghiou, K. Pamboris, G. Papageorghiou and L. Georghiou, who are the interested parties in these proceedings. The said decision was taken by the Chief of Police, with the approval of theMini ster of Interior, under section 13 of the Police Law, Cap. 285, as amended by the Police (Amendment) Law, 1966 (Law 29/66). The sub judice in the present cases decision is the result of 10 the re-examination by the Chief of Police of the matter of the filling of eleven vacancies in the F i e Service after the annul ment by the Supreme Court (see Tsangarides and others v. TheRepublic,
(1981)3C.L.R. 117)of thepromotionstothe rank of Sergeant of the same persons who are now the interested 15 parties in these proceedings. The applicants in the present recourses were, together with another person, the applicants in the Tsangarides case, in which Malachtos J. came to thecon clusion that there ought not to have been taken into account, in the manner in which this was done, reports of the Central 20 Information Service (ΚΥΡ) regarding doubts that existed about the loyalty of the applicants. As there appears from a letter of the Chief of Police to the Minister of Interior, dated 10th April 1981, the Chief of Police in re-examining the matter after the Tsangaridescase, supra, 25 ignored the reports of ΚΥΡ about the loyalty of the applicants, but, nevertheless, he took into account information leading him to the conclusion that the personal reputation of the appli cants had been diminished because of their behaviour during the abortive coup d'etat of the 15th July 1974; and it is quite 30 clear that this factor was an essential and decisive reason for deciding not to promote the applicants. There is nothing before the Court indicating the source of the aforesaid information. Nor does it appear that up to the 10th April 1981, when the Chief of Police wrote to the Minister 35 of Interiorseekinghis approval for thesub judice in the present proceedings promotions, the applicants were apprised of such information and were given an opportunity to refute it. On the basis of relevant case-law of this Court (see, in this respect, inter alia, Komodikis v. The Republic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. Γ527 Triantafyllides P. Tsangarides and Others v. Republic
(1984)81, 82-87, Haviarasv. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 159, 165-169 and Haviaras v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1345, 1347-1349) I have come to the conclusion that the applicants were excluded from consideration for purposes of promotion in a manner contrary totherulesof naturaljustice and, conse- 5 quently, the sub judice promotions of the interested parties —instead of the applicants—have to be annulled. I do not propose to make any order as to the costs of these two cases. Subjudicedecision annulled. No 10 order as to costs. 1528