clr/1987/1987_3_1715.pdf

(2)— Seniorityo(fiveor ofthreeyears — Lackofreasonswhy itwas disregarded—Groundof annulment 5 Theapplicant challenges thevalidity of thedecision of therespondents by which theinterested parties were promotedretrospectively asfrom 1380,to the rankof Inspectorinthe PoliceForce The applicant is senior by about five years in the case of interested parties Nos 9 and 10 and just under three years in the case ofall other interested parties 10 15 Held annulling the sub judice decision

(1)Regulation 2

(2)ofthe Police (Promotion) Regulations 1958, provides that semonty shall betaken into account although more importance should beattached to the professional ability andpersonal qualities of theofficers qualified for promotion

(2)On the matenal before the Court the applicant appears on the whole betterthantheinterested parties andnospecial reasonswere givenas towhy hissemonty was disregarded Subjudtce decisionannulled Costsagainstrespondents Recourse. 20 Recourse against the decision of the respondents to promote 1715 Chrysanthou v. Republic

(1987)the interested parties with retrospective effect as from 1 3 1980 to the rank of Inspectorinthe PoliceForce St Drymtotis, for theapplicant Μ Florentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents 5 Cur adv vult SAWIDES J read the following judgment The applicant challenges the validity of the decision of the respondents, published in the Police Weekly Orders on 24 12 84, by which the interested parties were promoted retrospectively as from 1 3 1980, to the rank of Inspectorin the Police Force 10 The applicant ongmally challenged the promotion of 30 interested parties, but in thecourse of theheanngof thecase, the recourse was withdrawn as against the first 20 of them The remaining interested parties, whose promotion is challenged by 15 the present recourse, are the following 1 Sgt 1467 Κ Miller, 2 » 153 Κ Michaehdes, 3 » 256 Κ Markoullis, 4 . 467 S Pafitis, 5 - 6 3 4 Κ Loizides, 6 » 1721 G Georghiades, 7 » 1962 S HadjiSofocleous, 8 » 2247 A Ierotheos, 9 » 266 A Neophytou, 10 » 56 G Sapanllas 20 25 The applicant, who joined the Police Force in 1959, was holding, at the matenal time, since 15.11 1969, the rank of Sergeant and is now holding, since December 1984, the rank of Inspector Qn 1.3 1980, the respondents promoted 30 Sergeants to the rank of Inspector The promotions were effected by the Chief of Police and approved by the Minister of Intenor The decision of the Chief of Police was based on the recommendations of the Divisional and Unit Commanders, the recommendations of certain Evaluation Committees appointed for the purpose, the report of the Selection Board and othermatenal and information 1716 J U 35 3 C.L.R. Chrysanthou v. Republic S a w i d e s J. received by the Central Information Sen ice. The applicant was amongst the officers «strongly recommended» by the Selection Board and selected for promotion by the Chief of Police, but his promotion was not approved by the Minister of Interior. As a 5 result,hefiled RecourseNo. 106/80intheSupremeCourt, which was tried together with a number of other recourses challenging the same decision. Bythejudgment of the Court inthesaid recourses(seeMichael andOthersv. TheRepublic

(1984)3C.L.R. 1364).thepromotions 10 were annulled on the following grounds:

(1)Violation of the rules of natural justice in that the reportsof the Central Information Service were taken into consideration without affording the opportunity to the officers affected to be heard. 15

(2)The participation of the Evaluation Committees, whose evaluations were taken into consideration in effecting the promotions, was not provided for either by the Law or the Regulations. As a result of the above annulling decision of the Court, the 20 Chief ofPolice,before reconsideringthematter,soughttheadvice of the Attorney-General's Office. The Deputy Attorney-General, byhisletterdated 19.12.1984, advised the Chief of Police thatin view of the fact that the Divisional Commanders had in the meantime retired and a number of the candidates had been 25 transferred to other districts, evaluation of the candidates by the Divisional Commanders was impossible and the only possible coursewastheevaluation ofthecandidatesbytheChief ofPolice himself,whowasinaposition toknowtheperformance and merit ofthe candidates atthe time of the annulled promotions. 30 The Chief of Police, acting on the above advice, selected 30 sergeants, the same who had been promoted by the annulled decision (amongst whom the interested parties) and sought the approval oftheMinisterofInteriorfortheir promotion, which wasgranted by letterdated21.12.1984. Itistobe noted thatthe 35 applicantwasnot,thistime,amongsttheofficers selected bythe Chief of Police for promotion. The promotion of the interested parties was published in the Police Weekly Orders dated 24.12.1984, as a result of which the applicant filed the present recourse. 1717 SawidesJ . Chrysanthou v.Republic

(1987)Counsel fortheapplicantlimitedhisaddressonthemeritsofthe case and submitted that the applicant issuperior tothe interested parties and should have been preferred to them. Counsel argued that the Chief of Police by his letter to the Minister dated 16.1.1980 had already selected, using also his personal 5 knowledge, the applicant for promotion as No. 6 on his list. Counsel contended that nothing has changed since then concerning the merits of the applicant and the personal viewof the Chief of Police about him and no reasons are given why the applicant was not promoted bythe subjudice decision. 10 it istheposition of counsel thatthe applicant - (a)isseniortoallinterested partiesboth inthe service aswellas to the rank of Sergeant. '(b)According to the evaluation of the Chief of Police (see letter of 16.1.1980) he had priority over the interested parties; 15 (c)he has more awards than any of the interested parties; (d)he has no punishments as compared to interested partyNo. 1 whohastwo punishments; and (e) he has been evaluated higher than the interested parties by theSelection Board. 20 The fact that the applicant has more awards than any of the interested parties has not been contested. This fact can also be ascertained from the letter of the Chief of Police to the Minister, dated 16.1.1980, containing the particularsforeach one of them. It has not also been contested that the applicant issenior to the 25 interested parties both in the service and inthe rank of Sergeant. Hisseniorityisabout fiveyearsinthecaseofinterested partiesNos 9 and 10 and just under three years in the case of all other interested parties. Regulation 2

(2)of the Police (Promotion) Regulations, 1958, 30 provides that seniority shall be taken intoaccount although more importance should be attached to the professional ability and personal qualitiesof the officers qualified for promotion. On the material before me Ifind that the applicant was on the whole better than the interested parties and no special reasons 35 were given as to why his seniority was disregarded. In the circumstances I find that the discretionary power of the 1718 3 C.L.R. Chrysanthou v. Republic Savvides J . ifspondents was not properly exercised and the sub tudice decision must therefore be annulled. In the result this recourse succeeds and the sub ludice decision is hereby annulled with costs against the respondent:? 5 Sub iudice decision annulled iur/7 costs against respondent* 1719