(1987)1987January 23 [MALACHTOS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION GEORGHIOS ARISTODEMOU AND ANOTHER, Applicants, v. THE ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY OF CYPRUS, Respondent. (CaseNos. 381/82 & 452/82). Public Corporations—ElectricityAuthority ofCyprus—Promotions—JointAdvisoryCommitteeforPromotionsandRegmdings—TheRegulationsrelatingto such CommitteeareinvalidastheywereneitherapprovedbytheCouncilof MinistersnorpublishedintheOfficialGazette—TheElectricityDevelopment Law, Cap. 171,asamendedbyLaw16/60, s.44—Thesettingupanddeci- 5 sionsofsaidCommitteeinvalid—Finalactofpromotionnullandvoid. Recourse forannulment—PowerofCourttoraiseandexamineissue exproprio motu. TheapplicantswereamongthecandidatesforpromotiontothepostofActingHead ofthe Department ofFinancialServicesfor Famagusta—Lamaca 10 District.Therelevantapplicationsofthecandidateswereconsideredbythe JointAdvisorySelection CommitteeforPromotionsandRegradings, which selected unanimously three candidates, that is the interested parties and applicantincase452/82.ThereportofthesaidCommitteewasexaminedby the Sub Committee on Staff Matters, which decided to recommend the 15 interestedpartiesforpromotiontothesaidpost.Therespondentsconsidered, inter alia, the recommendation of thesaid Sub Committee and decided to promotetheinterestedpartiestothesaidpost.Hencethepresentrecourse. Held,annullingAesubjudicedecisionil)Thoughtheissuehasnotbeen raised bythe parties,thisCourthaspowertoexamineexpropriomotuthe 20 issueofthevalidityoftheRegulationsrelatingtotheJointAdvisorySelection Committee.
(2)Thesaid Regulationsareinvalidasnothavingbeen approved bythe CouncilofMinistersandasnothavingbeenpublishedintheOfficial Gazette asprovidedbys.44ofCap. 171,asamendedbyLaw16/60. 58 Z5 3 C.L.R. Aristodemou v. E.A.C.
(3)ItfollowsthatthesettingupofthesaidCommittee anditsdecisionsare invalidand,assuchdecisionsarepartandparcelofthefinaldecisionof promotion, thesubjudice promotions arealsoinvalid. Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderastocosts. 5 Casesreferredto: Lambrakisv.TheRepublic
(1970)3 C.L.R.72; CyprusTransportCo.Ltd., v. TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R.163; Kofterosv.E.A.C.
(1985)3C.L.R.394; 10 Sawa v.E.A.C.
(1986)3C.L.R.80; Gavrief v.E.A.C.
(1986)3C.L.R.
- Recourses. Recoursesagainstthe decision oftherespondentstopromote theinterestedpartiestothepostofActingHeadoftheDepartment 15 ofFinancialServicesinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. Ph.Valiantis, fortheapplicantinCaseNo.381/
- ApplicantinCaseNo.452/82appearedinperson. D.Michaelidou(Mrs.), fortherespondent. Cur. adv.vult 20 MALACHTOSJ. read thefollowingjudgment. Bythepresent recourses, which were heard together as they attack the same administrative decision, the applicantsclaima declaration ofthe CourtthatthedecisionoftherespondentAuthoritytopromotethe interestedparties,namely,G.TassouandA.Andreoutothepost 25 ofActingHeadoftheDepartmentofFinancialServicesinsteadof theapplicants,isnullandvoidandofnolegaleffect whatsoever. Applicant in Case No. 381/82, Georghios Aristodemou, was first appointed by the respondent Authority on 1.6.57 and he servedthereafter invarioussectionsoftheFinancialDepartment. 30 Applicant inCaseNo.452/82,AndreasKalafatis, first entered theserviceoftherespondentAuthorityon11.4.57andatthetime thesubjudicedecisionwastakenheheldthepostofClerkI. 59 MalachtosJ. Aristodemou v. EA.C.
(1987)ThevacanciesinthepostofActingHeadoftheDepartmentof FinancialServicesfortheFamagusta-LamacaDistrictOffice,were advertised on 10.3.82 and nine employees of the Authority, including the two applicants and the interested parties, applied. Their applications were considered inaccordance with theJoint 5 AdvisorySelection CommitteeRegulations,bytheJointAdvisory Selection Committee for Promotions and Regradings, which selectedunanimouslythreecandidates,theinterestedpartiesand applicantinCaseNo.452/82,assuitablecandidatestoberecommended forpromotionandsubmitteditsreporttotherespondent io Authorityon29.6.82. This report was considered by the Sub Committee of the AuthorityonStaff Mattersatitsmeetingof7.7.82,whichdecided torecommend tothe Authority the interested partiesforpromotion. 15 TherespondentAuthorityatitsmeetingof27.7.82considered, inter alia, the recommendations of the Sub Committee and decided topromotetheinterestedparties. As against such promotions the applicants filed the present recourses. 20 Thegroundsoflawonwhichbothrecoursesarebasedmaybe summarisedasfollows: 1.Thattherespondentsacted underamisconception offactin thattheydisregardedthefactthattheapplicantsaresuperiortothe interested partiesinmerit,qualifications andseniority. 25 2.Thatthesubjudicedecisionlacksdueoranyreasoning,and 3.ThattherespondentAuthorityactedinadiscriminatorymannertowardstheapplicants. Beforeexaminingthegroundsoflawandtheargumentsputforwardon behalf oftheapplicants,I holdtheviewthattherearises 30 an issuewhich mustbe considered first and which,even though notraisedbytheparties,maybeexaminedbythisCourtexpropriomotu -See Lambrakis v. The Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R 72at p.74;alsoCyprusTransportCo.Ltd.andAnotherv. TheRepublic 35
(1970)3C.L.R.163atp. 166-167. 60 3 C.L.R. Arietodemou v. E.A.C. Malachtoa J . 5 ThismatteristheissueofthevalidityoftheJointAdvisorySelectionCommitteeRegulationsbyvirtueofwhichtheJointAdvisory SelectionCommitteewassetupandapre-selectionofthecandidateswasmadeonthebasisofwhichthefinalselectionofthecan10 didateswasmadebytherespondentAuthority. In the present case, the validity of such regulations was not raised, however,itwasinissueinseveralcasesbefore thisCourt whereitwasdecidedthatsuchregulationswereinvalidasnothavingreceived theapprovaloftheCouncilofMinistersandasnot 15 havingbeenpublishedintheOfficial GazetteoftheRepublic,asis required bysection 44oftheElectricityDevelopment Law,Cap. 171,asamendedbyLaw16of1960.SeeKofterosv. E4C
(1985)3C.L.R.394at403;Sawa v. EAC
(1986)3C.L.R.80;Georghios Gavriel v. EAC(Recourse No. 296/82, unreported*, judgment 20 deliveredon29.10.86). Thefactisthatthesaidregulationsbeinginvalidrenderthesetting up of the Joint Advisory Selection Committee and itsdecisionsequallyinvalid,assuchdecisionsbeingpartandparcelofthe final decision of the respondent Authority, invalidate asa result 25 such decision of the Authority and the promotions or appointmentsmadethereby. Inviewofthe factthattheabove matterdisposesineffect the whole case, Ido not consider itnecessary to pronounce on the othergroundsoflawputforwardbytheapplicants. 30 Intheresult,thesubjudicedecisionisherebyannulled. Therewillbenoorderastocosts. Subjudice decisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. *Nowreported In
(1986)3C.L.R.1465. 61