(1987)1987 Apnl 3 [SAWIDES J ) INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ODYSSEASGEORGAKIS AND OTHERS, Applicant, ν THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1 THEMINISTEROFINTERIOR, 2 THECHIEFOFPOLICE, Respondents (CasesNo 993/85, 996/85, 997/85, 998/85, 999/85,1025/85, 1032/85, 1057/85, 5/86, 10/86, 12/86 14/86and15/86) PoliceForce— The PoliceLaw, Cap 285—Section 10
(2)—Section 13(Law29/ 66) — Promotions — ThePolice (Promotions)Regulations — Regulations madeafterthe enactment ofLaw 29/66 unders 10
(2)invalid— Vahdityofthe onginal
(1958)regulations notaffected—Regulations 2,3 and4ofthe 1958 regulations —In reconsidenng matterofpromotions followinganannulling decision ofthisCourt, itwas foundimpossible toapplyregs 3 and 4 —Inthe circumstances,they werenghtly by-passed S Administrative act — Retrospective effect — Re-examination of matter after annulment ofpromotions—New decisionmay begivenretrospectiveeffect, but not to dieprejudice of other holders ofasimilarpost, who wereeligible 1 0 to be considered forpromotion atthe time, when the onginal decision was taken Legitimate interest — Re-consideration of annulledpromotions — New decision with aretrospectiveeffect asfrom the dateoftheannulled decision—Officers promoted to thepost in question afterthe onginal decision areprejudicially 1 5 affected by new decision asregardstheirsemonty — Legitimate interest to challenge the new decision Administrative act—Presumption ofregularity Administrative Law— Due inquiry— Promotions of Police Officers— Failure to mention who were the candidates or whether a companson of ments was made or whethermatenal in therespectivefilesofeachcandidateweretaken into account — Doubt as to whether such inquiryhad been earned out — Groundof annulment 348 20 3 C.L.R. Georgakls v. Republic Reasoning of an administrative act — Promotions of PoliceOfficers —Lack of sufficientreasoningenablingthe Cout to exerciseproper control— Ground of annulment 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Thepromotionsmadeon 13 80oftheinterestedparties,exceptinterested parties lendes andMina,tothepost of Chief Inspectorwere annulledby this Court in Recourses 126/80 and 127/80 by lendes and Minaonthe ground that the Chief of Police had taken into account irrelevant matenal and in particularinformation supplied by theCentralInformation Service* Having reconsidered the matterthe Chief of Police arrived at the same decision,which,however, was again annulledinRecourses559/83 and560/ 83 by lendes and Minaon the ground of departure from the Regulationsin that the weight attached to the evaluation of the Advisory Selection Committeewas thesameasthatattachedtotheopinionofanorganforwhich provision is made in Regulations 3 and 4 and on the ground that there was nothingtoindicatethattheinformationsupplied by theCentral Information Service hadbeen ignored** Inviewof thefact thatthethenCommandingOfficers have eitherretiredor beenreplaced,whilstanumberof candidateswere sincetheonginaldecision transferred to other places of work, it was found that in reconsidenng the matter,following thesecondannulment,stnctcompliancewiththeprocedure envisaged by the Regulations was impossible and,as a result, the Chief of Police,actingontheadvice of theAttorney-General,reconsideredthematter relying on his own knowledge of the candidatesand decidedtopromoteall thoseearlierpromotedandinadditionlendesandMina Thesaidpromotions were made with the approval of the Minister of lntenor Their effect was retrospective as from 13 80, that is the day when the onginal promotions were made Hence thepresentrecourses Itmustbe notedthatapplicantsin recourses 993/85 and 12/86 were not considered for promotion on the groundthat theyhadbeen promotedtothepost inquestion on 17 84 Held, annulling the sub-judice decision
(1)The effect of Lefkatis and Others ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 C LR 1372, affirmed onappealinStavrou andOthersv TheRepublic{1986)3 C L R 361,was explained in Yiallouros ν TheRepublic
(1986)3 C LR 677 atpp 683-684 The fact thatamending regulations madeafter theenactmentof Law29/66were found tobe invalid, as having been made unders 10
(2)(The Police Law, Cap 285), which had been repealed by necessary implication by Law 29/66, does notaffect the validity of the onginal Police (Promotions) Regulations, 1958 The Regulations prescnbing the procedure for promotionsare Regulations 2, 3 and4 of the 1958 regulations •See[eiidesandAnotherν Republic
(1983)3 C LR 1028 'See [eridesandAnotherν Republic
(1985)3CLR2078 349 Georgakls v. Republic
(1987)
(2)As the onginal recommendations of the commanding officers and the procedurebeforetheselectionboardscouldnotbeadoptedin reconsidering the matter, Regulations 3 and 4 had to be bypassed and the only possible coursewastheonefollowed,namely tomakethepromotionsonthebasisof selection by the Chief of Police, who did so on the basis of his personal 5 knowledge of thecandidates[Ymllouros v. TheRepublic,supra, adopted).
(3)Theapplicantsinrecourses993/85and 12/86havealegitimateinterest tochallengethesubjudicepromotions,assuchpromotionsareprejudicial to their interests in that the retrospectivity of such promotions places the interested parties in an advantageous position asregardsseniority over the two said applicants 10
(4)Anadministrativedecisiontakeninthecourseofreconsideringofacase, asaresult of an annulling decisionof thisCourt, maybegiven retrospective effect, but not to the detriment of others already holding asimilar post and who were eligible for consideration as candidates as at the date of the 1 5 annulleddecision. Itfollowsthatthetwoapplicants inrecourses993/85 and 12/86succeedonthisground.
(5)In the absence of any proof to the contrary and in view of the presumption of regularity, it must be assumed that the Minister gave his approvalofthepromotionsinquestionafterconsideringallmatenalaspects. 20
(6)Asregardsthesubjudiceselectionofcandidatesthesubjudice decision extendstoabout twolines asfollows: •TheChiefof Police proceeded toevaluateallthethencandidatesrelyingon hispersonalknowledge andevaluationof eachoneof them ». Nothing is mentioned as to who were such candidates or whether any 2 5 comparisonoftheirrespectivemeritswasmadeorwhethertheChiefofPolice reliedon materialintheirpersonalfiles(excludingirrelevantmaterialsuchas thereportsof theCentral InformationService).Inthelightoftheabovethere arisesadoubt asto whether adue inquiry was carried out. Furthermore the subjudice decisionlackssufficient reasoningto enabletheCourtto exercise 3 0 propercontrol. Forthesereasonsithas tobeannulled. Subjudice decision annulled. No order astocosts. Casesreferred to: lendes andAnother v. TheRepublic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1028; terides andAnother v. TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R.2078; Michael and Others v. TheRepublic
(1984)3C.L.R. 1364; 350 35 3 C.L.R. Georgftlds v. Republic StavrouandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 361; Yiallourosv. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R,677; LefkatisandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.1372; Republicv.Ekkeshis
(1975)3C.L.R.548; 5 Michael(No.2)v.TheRepublic
(1975)3C.L.R.
- Recourses. Recourses, againstthe decision of the respondents to promote the interested partiesto the post of Chief Inspector in the Police Force inpreference and instead of the applicants. 10 G. Triantafyllides, forapplicant inCase No.993/
- A. Papacharalambous, for applicants in Cases Nos. 996/85, 997/85, 998/85,999/85and 1025/
- A. S. Angelides, forapplicant inCaseNo. 1032/
- A. Magos,forapplicantinCaseNo. 10/
- 15 E. Vrahimi(Mrs.), for applicantinCase No.12/
- G. Charalambides, for applicants in Cases Nos. 14/86 and 15/
- . M.Florentzos,Senior Counsel of the Republic, forthe respondents. 20 D.Papachrysostomou, forinterested partyA. Stefanou. Cur. adv. vult. SAWIDESJ.readthefollowing judgment.Thepromotionsof twelve police officers to the post of Chief Inspector inthe Police Force,asfrom 1stMarch,1980,whichwaspublished inthePolice 25 WeeklyOrders,Part2,dated28thOctober, 1985,ischallengedby 351 Savvldes J . Georgakls v. Republic
(1987)the applicants in these recourses which were heard together as presenting commonquestions of law and fact. After the hearing was concluded the applicants filed a notice that their claim for the annulment of the promotion of one of the interested parties, namely, Ρ Frydhas. was withdrawn as such party had, inthemeantime,died.Therefore, therecourse concer ning the promotionof thesaid officer ishereby dismissed. 5 The remaining interested parties are' A. Ierides, A. Mina, G. Kasapis, A. Seymenis, N. Solomonides, A. Christofides, N. Kazafaniotis, A. Kokkinos, M. Pahitis, A. S.Demetriades, A. Stefanou. 10 15 The applicants and the interested parties are members of the 20 Police Force. On 1st March, 1980 the interested parties, with the exception of Andreas IeridesandAndreas Minawerepromotedto the rank of Chief Inspector and their promotions were published in thePoliceOrders, PartIINo. 10/80 date 10.3.1980. The said promotions were challenged by Andreas Ierides and 25 Andreas Mina by recourses Nos 126/80 and 127/80 and were subsequently annulled by theCourton the ground thatthe Chief of Policeinreachinghisdecision hadtakenintoconsiderationirre levant material andinparticularinformation concerningthecandi dates, supplied tohim by the Central Information Service, (ΚΥΡ). 30 .(Seelendes &Another v.Republic
(1983)3 CL.R. 1028). Immediately after such annulmentthe Chief of Police reconsi dered the promotions and came to the decision to promote the same officers tothesaid vacant posts. Inarriving athisdecision he took intoconsideration «allmaterialwhich existed intheCandida- 35 tes' personal files at the time of the annulled decision» and the 352 3 C.L.R. Georgakis v. Republic Sawldea J. evaluation of the candidates made by a committee of selection previously appointed by him under the Police (Promotions) Regulations Thesame interested parties lendes andMina challenged again 5 the promotions of the same officers by Recourses Nos 559/83 and 560/83 which came up for hearing before me By my judgment which was delivered on the 3rd October 1985 (lendes and Another ν The Republic
(1985)3 C LR 2078) Iannulled such promotionson the following grounds 10 (a) The evaluation of thecandidates by theCommitteeof Selec tion appointed by the Chief of Police amounted to «a departure from theRegulations, inthattheweight attachedtotheevaluation oftheAdvisorySelectionCommitteewas thesameasthatattached to theorgans for which provisions is made in Regulations 3 and 4 15 and, therefore the function of such Advisory Committeewas not of an advisory character » (p2090) Iadopted in this respect the following dictum in the case of Michael and Others ν The Rep ublic
(1984)3 C LR 1364 atρ 1378 20 25 «It is clear from the above that the weight attached to the evaluation of theadvisory selection committeesisthesame as thatattachedtotheorgans for which provision ismadeinreg ulations 3 and 4 and thattheirfunctions is by no means of an advisory character as submitted The departure from the provisions of the above regulations, in my view, renders the evaluation and selection of the candidates promoted defec tive and invalid and thedecision based thereonvoid and,the refore, a ground for annulment» (b) In the reasons given by the Chief of Police for making the promotions itwas stated thathe took intoconsideration«all mate30 rial which existed intheirpersonal files atthetime of the annulled decisions» There was nothing indicating that he had ignored the information supplied by the Central Information Service (ΚΥΡ) which was aground for annulling thepromotionsof thesameinte rested partiesmtheprevious recourse (lendes andAnother ν The 35 /?epu6/ic
(1983)3CLR 1028) Soon after the annulment of the said promotions the Chief of Police reconsidered the promotions and came to the decision to 353 Savvldes J. Georgakis v. Republic
(1987)promote tothe rank ofChief Inspector thesame officers (theinterested parties) whose promotions had been previously annulled and also thetwo interested partiesonthe application ofwhich the previouspromotionswereannulled.HisdecisionwascommunicatedtotheMinisterofInteriorforthelatter'sapproval undersection 5 13
(2)of the Police Law, Cap. 285 and after such approval was obtained, it was published in the Police Orders Part IINo. 43/85 dated the28th October, 1985.The material partof hisdecision as contained inthe said Orders reads as follows: «Annulment ofPromotions by theSupreme Court. 10 The Supreme Court ina recent decision (3.10.85) allowed the recourses of Sub-Inspector Andreas Ierides and Andreas Mina and annulled for the second time the promotions often Inspectors to Chief Inspectors which were effected on 1st March, 1980.Automaticallythesaidpromotionsceasedtobe 15 valid. The contents ofthejudgment of the Courtwerestudied carefully. In view of the fact that the evaluation of the then candidates bythecommittee ofevaluation which isnotprovided bythe regulations preceded the recommendations ofthe District Commanding Officers, it is natural that both the 20 recommendationsofthelatter,aswellastheorderof classification of the candidates by the Selection Board, have become void as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court. Given that the then Commanding Officers have either retired or been replaced whilst a number of the candidates were since 25 then transferred from their original places of work it has become impossible inthe course of eventsto repeat the procedure contemplated by the regulations. For thisreason, on the basis of an advice by the Attorney-General, the Chief of Police proceeded to evaluate all the then candidates relying 30 on his personal knowledge and evaluation of each one of them on the basis of the situation prevailing at the time and reached thedecision topromote thoseSub-Inspectors whose promotion was annulled by the Supreme Court and also the two applicants whose recourses were allowed by the same 35 Court. With the approval ofthe Honourable Ministerof Interiorin accordance with section 13
(2)the following are promoted to 354 3 C.L.R. Georgakls v. Republic Sawides J. the rank of Chief Inspector, retrospectively as from 1.3.1980: » (And then the names of the officers promoted, the interested partiesinthisrecourse, are mentioned). 5 The advice referred to in the sub judice decision is that of Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic (Annex C to the opposition) the material part of which readsas follows: « 10 15 20 25
- Inthe circumstances I believe thatthe onlypossible procedure is the evaluation of the candidates by the superior authority which isina position to know the performance and meritofthecandidatesatthe timeoftheannulled promotions andprovidesthusthe relevant safeguards ofacorrect evaluation. Iunderstand that the only superior authority satisfying the above prerequisites is the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police may therefore make evaluation of the candidates for promotion at that time on the basis of the position existing then, ignoring the procedure for evaluation bythe Commanding Officers, (and obviously the evaluation bythose officers at that time which islegally defective since itwas prejudiced bythe recommendations ofthe Evaluation Committee which wasfound bythe Court tobe incompetent). 6.1mustalsoadd thattheprocedure forclassification ofthe candidates by the Selection Board has again become in fact impossible since itsfunctioning presupposes the recommendation of the Commanding Officers, which, as Isaid eailier, arenolongerpossible.Thisproceduremayalso,therefore, be disregarded on the basisof the above case law.» As a result, the applicants filed the present recourses challen30 gingthesaidpromotions.ApplicantsincasesNos993/85and 12/ 86 namely, Odysseas Georgakis and Michalis Komodikis challengethepromotionsonlyontheground ofretrospectivity, which affected their position in view of the fact that both of them had alreadybeen holding asimilarpost since the 1stJuly,
- 35 The main arguments advanced by counsel in support of their 355 S a w i d e s J. Georgakls v. Republic
(1987)grounds of law raised inthese recourses are the following (a) Inview fo the fact thatthe Police Regulations had been dec lared null and void by the Supreme Court in the case of Stavrou and Others ν Republic
(1986)3 C LR 361, the Police Regula tions 1958 were the only ones in force, and that the promotions 5 which were made with retrospective effect as from 1st March, 1980 on the basis of the situation prevailing at the matenal time should have been made in accordance with the Police Regula tions, 1958, the only validregulations undersection 13
(3)of Cap. 285 (
- b)TheCommanderofPoliceby followingaprocedurenotcon templated by such regulations and which is entirely foreign to them, has acted inexcess and/or in abuse of powers (
- c)The approval of the Minister which is a prerequisite for the finahzation of thedecision was given asa matterof routinewithout 15 any inquiry intothe legality of thedecision of theChief of Police (
- d)Assuming that the procedure followed was correct, the sub judice decision has to be annulled,as there had been lack of due reasoning, and lack of due inquiry onthemeritsand qualifications of thecandidates Nothingtsmentionedinthesubjudice decision 20 as towho of thecandidateswere considered aseligibleforpromo tion and whether any comparison was made between theintere sted parties and the applicants in the process of selection of the best candidates for promotion (e)The alleged evaluation of the Chief of Police was based on 25 hisalleged personal knowledge ofthe candidateswithoutany refe rence tothe cnteria taken intoconsideration by himinhis evalua tion and nothingis recorded toenable the courttoexercise apro per controlover his decision Counsel for applicants in Cases 993/85 and 12/86 further 30 argued thattherespondentChief of Policeactingundera miscon ception considered thatoncethetwo applicantshad already been promoted to the post of Chief Inspector as from 1st July, 1984 they need not be considered amongst the candidates for promo tionas from the 1st March, 1980 By ignonng themandpromoting 35 356 1 0 3 C.L.R. Georgakls v. Republic Sawldes J the interested parties retrospectively as from 1st March, 1980, he acted totheprejudice of thetwo said applicants inviewof the fact that by such retrospective promotion the interested parties acquired automatically senionty over them 5 Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Chief of Police decided the promotions on the basis of the position existing in 1980, at the time of the annulled promotions and followed aprocedure which was notmstnctcompliancewith the regulations as itwas no longer possible, for thereasons stated 10 in the advice by the Attorney-General's office and thesub judice decision, to follow the procedure contemplated by the Regula tions In support of this contention he sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in Yiallourosι* The Republic
(1986)3 C LR 677, inwhich itwas found thatsimilar procedure followed 15 by the Chief of Police in effecting promotions to the rank of Inspectorwas inthe circumstances theonly one available tohim The effect of the case of Lefkatis and Others ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 C LR 1372 which was affirmed on appeal (reported as Stavrou and Others ν The Republic
(1986)3 C LR 361). was 20 explained by meinthecase of Yiallourosν Republic(supra)as fol lows atpp 683 - 684 — 25 30 35 «Section 13
(3)as set out in Law 29/66, amended by necessary implication,section 10
(2)asfar asthevestingofthe power to make regulations is concerned That is, after the enactment of Law 29/66, the power to make regulations regarding the promotions of Police Officers vests in the Council of Ministers The result is thatall amendmentstothe regulations made after the enactment of the above law are ultravirestheLaw, sincetheywere madeundersection 10
(2)The Regulations affected are, as far as the present case is concerned, the amending regulations under Nos 943/66, 111/72and 347/80, .Under the proviso tosection 13
(3)the Regulations existing atthetime of theenactmentof Law 29/66willcontinue to be inforce untilthe enactmentof thenew Regulations No new Regulations were made under section 13. but only cer tain amending regulations to the existing ones of 1958 The 357 Savvldes J. Georgakls v. Republic
(1987)fact that such amending regulationswere found tobe invalid, does not effect the validity of the original Regulations which aresaved bytheprovisotosection 13
(3)oftheLaw,asamended byLaw29/
- The Regulations of 1958 prescribing the procedure to be followed forpromotionsinthePoliceForceareRegulations2, 3 and 4.Regulation 2isageneral one,settingdown thecriteriafor promotion. 5 Regulation 3 provides for the recommendations of the Commanding Officers and the matters to be mentioned the- 10 rein. Regulation 4 regulates the constitution and setting up of Selection Boards and provides that selection for promotion up toand includingtherank ofAssistantSuperintendent shall be made bysuch Boards.» Inthe same case I had the opportunity of considering the question as to whether a similar procedure followed by the Chief of Police was irregular in circumstances similar to the present one and Ifound asfollows (atpp.684,685):«It is,however, a fact that such procedure wasnotfollowed 20 in the case of the subjudice promotions because the recommendations of the commanding officers and the procedure before theselection boardscould notbeadopted, forthe reasons which appear in the advice of the Attorney-General of theRepublictowhichreference hasalreadybeen made.Thus 25 Regulations3and4hadtobebypassed andtheonlypossible course was to proceed to the sub judice promotions on the basisofaselection madebythe Chief ofPolicewho,asstated inhisletterof20.12.1984 totheMinister(cited earlier),didso on the basisof hispersonal knowledge ofthe candidates and 30 the evaluation made byhim, alsobased onsuch knowledge, bearing inmind the criteriasetoutinRegulation 2.1, therefore, find that the subjudice decision was nottaken under any invalid regulations and that for the reasons mentioned, the procedure followed by the Chief of Police was, in the cir- 35 cumstances,the onlyone available tohim.» Support for such view may be found in Odent, ContenrJeux 358 15 3C.L.R. Georgakls v. Republic Savvldes J . Administratif at pp. 1497, 1499 where it is stated that the administration isnotbound tofollow the procedure which, inthe circumstances,hasbecomeimpossible(notduetoanyfaultonthe part of theadministration). Insuch circumstances, ithasto follow 5 a procedure analogous to that, which, however, should afford similar safeguards. Iadopt whatIsaidinthe Yiallouroscaseconcerningthevalidity oftheprocedure followed bytheChief ofPoliceinthecircumstances of thepresent case inview of the fact the procedure contem10 plated by Regulations 3 and 4 concerning the recommendations of the Commanding Officers and the procedure before theSelectionboardscould notbe adopted forthereasonsappearing inthe advice of the Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic to which reference has already been made and Ifind no reason to depart 15 from mysaidjudgment.Whatremainstobeconsidered iswhether inthe circumstances ofthe present casestheChief ofPoliceacted in accord with the established principles for the selection of the best candidatesfor promotion. Before proceeding to consider the other grounds raised by 20 counsel for applicants, Ishalldeal first withthequestion raisedby applicantsinRecourses993/85and 12/86astowhethertheretrospective effect giventothepromotion oftheinterestedpartieshas affected theirseniority inthe service.Nothingismentioned inthe decision of the Chief of Police that the said two candidates were 25 amongst those who were considered for promotion, as from 1st March, 1980,butfrom whatemanates from theargumentsadvanced before me, the Chief of Police did not so consider them becausetheyhadalreadybeenpromoted toasimilarrankinApril.
- The said two applicants have a legitimate interest tochal30 lengethesubjudicedecisioninviewofthefactthatanypromotion with retrospective effect prior to the date of their promotion to a similarrank, obviously isprejudicial totheirinterests,astheretrospectivityofthepromotion oftheinterested partiesplacedthemin an advantageous position over the two applicants, in that they 35 automaticallyacquired seniority over the applicants. An administrative decision taken in the course of re-examinationofacaseasaresultofanannullingdecision oftheCourt,may be given retrospective effect and this affords an exception to the 359 Savvldes J. Georgakls v. Republic
(1987)rule of non-retrospectivity of administrative acts.Support may be found inseveral Greekauthors,as,for example, in Kyriacopoulos on GreekAdministrative Law, 4thEdition,Volume Βp.400; Con clusions from the Case Law of theGreek Councilof State,
(19291959), p.281 and Dendias on Administrative Law, 2nd Edition, 5 Volume C.p. 359. Such retrospective promotion,however, can not be made to the detriment of others already holding a similar postand whowereeligiblefor consideration as candidatesas from the date of the decision annulled in case retrospective effect isto be given to such promotions.I have, therefore, come tothe con- 10 elusion thatthe recourses of these two applicants succeed onthis ground and thesub judice promotionshave tobe annulled. Having dealtwith thequestion of retrospectivity, I come nowto consider the othergrounds raised by counsel for all other parties. Ishall first dealbriefly with thecontentionofcounselthattheMini- 15 ster in the present case acted as a rubber-stamp approving the decisions of the Chief of Police without any inquiry on his part. In accordance with the presumption of regularity (see, interalia,the Republic v. Ekkeshis
(1975)3 C.L.R. 548, Michael (No.2) v. The Republic
(1975)3 C.L.R.432), andintheabsence of any proof to 20 thecontrary, I mustassume thattheMinisterof Interiordidgivehis approval after considering all materialaspects ofthedecision tobe approved as submitted tohimby the Chief of Police.Therefore,I find no merit inthis argument. The material part inthedecision of theChief of Police appears 25 inaverybrief mannerinthetextof thedecision aspublished inthe monthly Police Orders. Inthesaid orders after along statementas tothereasons which led the Chief of Police tofollow aprocedurenotcontemplated by the rules, the decision goes on torefer totheselection of thecan- 30 didates for promotion in a very brief mannerextending to about two lines as follows: «The Chief of Policeproceeded toevaluate allthethencandi dates relying on his personal knowledge and evaluation of each one of them » Nothingis mentionedeither inhissubjudice decision orhislet tertothe Minister, dated 22.10.1985, requesting his approval for 360 35 3 C.L.R. Georgakls v.Republic Sovvldes J . thesaidpromotions,oranywhereelseinthematerialbefore meas to who were the candidates taken by him into consideration or whetheranycomparison regardingtheirmeritswasmade,orwhether inmaking hisevaluation he relied on any material contained 5 in thepersonal files of the applicants concerning their career and performance intheservice (excludinganyirrelevant andinadmissible matter such as the reports of the Central Information Service.) From the materia!before me a doubt arises as to whether a proper inquiry was carried .put by the Chief of Police in the 10 evaluation of the meritsof the candidates and their performance. Furthermore Ihave come to the conclusion that the sub judice decision lacks sufficient reasoning enabling the Court to exercise proper control over it. For all the above reasons the sub judice decision hastobe annulled. 15 In the result the sub judice promotions are annulled but inthe circumstances I make no order for cost. Subjudice decision annulled. No order astocosts., 361