(1987)1987 January 22 [MALACHTOS.J] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHE CONSTITUTION 1. GEORGHIOSPAMPAKA, 2 IOANNISDEMETRIOU, Applicants, v. THE ELECTRICITYAUTHORITY OFCYPRUS, Respondent (CaseNo 550/82) Public Corporations—ElectricityAuthority of Cyprus—Promotions—JointAdvi soryCommitteeforPromotionsandRegradings—TheRegulationsrelatingto suchCommitteeareInvalidastheywereneitherapprovedbytheCouncilof Ministers norpublished intheOfficialGazette—Pre-selection ofcandidates forpromotion by said CommitteeInvalid—Final actofpromotion nulland 5 void. Recourseforannulment—Additionalgroundofannulment—Practice The applicants were among the candidates for promotion tothe postof Technical Assistant Engineer in the Operation Department The relevant applicationsofthecandidatesforthepostwereconsideredbytheJointAdvi- 10 sorySelection CommitteeforPromotionsandRegradingswhichselectedsix ofthetencandidates,includingtheapplicantsandtheInterestedparties The sub CommitteeonStaff Mattersdecidedtorecommendfor promotionfour candidates, including the interested parties The respondents considered, inter alia,thesaidrecommendations anddecidedtopromotethose recom- 15 mended Asaresulttheapplicants filed thepresentrecourse Held,annullingthesubjudicedecision
(1)ThoughtheIssueofthevalidity of theprocedure followed for thesub judtcedecision was notraisedinthe groundsoflawsetoutintheaboveapplication,butonlyinthewrittenaddress ofcounselforapplicants,itcannonethelessbecpnsideredbythisCourt(Cyp- 2 0 rusFlourMills Ltd ν TheRepublic
(1973)3 CLR 690)
(2)The Regulations relatingtotheJointAdvisory CommitteeforPromo- 62 3C.L.R. PampakaandAnotherv.E.A.C. tionsandRegradingsareinvalidbecausetheywereneitherapprovedbythe CouncilofMinistersnorpublishedintheOfficialGazette. 3)Asthefinalactofpromotionwasbasedonthepre-selectionmadebythe saidCommitteeonthebasisofthesaidinvalidRegulationsandassuchpre5 selectionispartandparcelofthefinalact,thesubjudicepromotionshaveto beannulled. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 10 CyprusFlourMillsLtd. v.TheRepublic
(1973)3C.L.R. 690; Istambouli Brosv. TheDirector of theDepartment of Customs
(1986)1 C.L.R. 465; Kofterosv. E.A.C
(1985)3C.L.R.394, Sawa v. E.A.C.
(1986)3C.L.R.80; Gavrielv. E.A.C.
(1986)3C.L.R. 1465. 15 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interestedpartiestothepostofTechnicalAssistantEngineerinthe OperationsDepartmentinpreferenceandinsteadoftheapplicants. 20 Ph.Valiantis, fortheapplicants. S,Pouyouros,forthe respondent. Cur. adv.vult MALACHTOSJ. readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicants bythepresentrecourseclaimadeclaration oftheCourtthatthe decision of therespondentAuthority topromote the interested 25 parties, namely, Chr. Papastylianou, L Flouris and A. Theodorides to thepost of TechnicalAssistant Engineerin the OperationsDepartment, insteadoftheapplicants, isnullandvoid andofnolegaleffectwhatsoever. Thefactsofthecasearethefollowing: 30 ApplicantIwasfirstappointedtemporarilyby therespondent Authorityon 15.3.67 and on 1.2.68he became apermanent employee. On 1.7.81thisapplicant waspromoted to the post ofPlant OperatorI. HeisagraduateoftheLanitionGymnasiumLimassol, 35 andhasobtainedtheBoilerOperator'sCertificateandtheSteam TurbinePlantOperation(PEI&11)oftheCity&Guilds Institute. 63 Malacnto·J. PampakaandAnotherv.E.A.C.
(1987)Applicant 2wasfirstappointed temporarily bythe respondent Authorityon 13.5.63andwasappointed toapermanent poston 1.1.64.HebecamePlantOperator I on 1.7.81.Heisgraduateof theLamacaCommercialLyceum. On 28.6.82 four vacancies in the post of Technical Assistant 5 Ehgineer in the Operations Department for the Moni Electric PowerStationwereadvertisedandtenemployeesoftheAuthority, including the applicants and the interested parties applied. Theirapplicationswereconsideredatthemeetingsofthe14thand 20thOctober, 1982,inaccordancewiththeJointAdvisoryCom- 10 mitteeRegulations,bytheJointAdvisorySelectionCommitteefor PromotionsandRegradingswhichselectedunanimouslysixoutof thetencandidates,includingtheapplicantsandtheinterestedpartiesasthemostsuitableforthepostinquestion. TheSubCommitteeoftheAuthorityonStaffMattersatitsmeet- 15 ingof9.11.82decidedtorecommendtotheAuthorityforpromotionfourcandidates,includingtheinterestedparties. The respondent Authority at its meeting of 12.11.82 considered,interalia,therecommendationsoftheSubCommitteeand decidedtopromotethefourcandidatesrecommended,including 20 the interested parties,tothepostofTechnicalAssistantEngineer in the Operations Department of the Electric Power Station of Moni,witheffect asfrom 1.12.
- Asaresultofthepromotionsofthethreeinterestedparties,the applicantsfiledthepresentrecourse.Inthecourseofthehearing, 25 however, the recourse was withdrawn against interested party Papastylianou and remained only as against interested parties FlourisandTheodorides. The grounds oflawuponwhichthe recourse isbased maybe summarisedasfollows: 1.Thattherespondent Authorityacted underamisconception offactbydisregardingthefactthattheapplicantsaresuperiorto theinterestedpartiesinmerit,qualifications andseniority. 2.Thattherespondent Authorityacted inabuseand/orexcess ofpowerinthatitfailed toselectthemostsuitablecandidates. 35
- Itacted in a discriminatory manner towardsthe applicants, and 64 30 3 C.L.R. Pampaka and Another v. E.A.C. Malachto· · 4 Thesubjudice decision lacks due orany reasoning Itwas argued bycounselfortheapplicantsinhiswnttenaddress thattheprocedurefollowed by therespondentAuthonty in effect ingthesaid promotionswas invalid and illegal having been based 5 on regulations which were invalid not having been approved bv, the Councilof MinistersorDublished intheOfficial Gazetteofthe Republic in accordance with section 44 of the Electricity Development Law, Cap 171,as amended by Law 16 of 196T) Though such matterwas notraised inthegrounds of law as set 10 out in this application, it can nonetheless be considered by this Court See Cyprus Flour Mills Ltd ν The Republic,
(1973)3 C LR 690 atρ 694, where thefollowing isstated 15 20 «In Cyprus the established practice seems to be that in a proper case and subject to the necessary safeguards for the protectionof theotherside,additionalgrounds orreasons for annulment are allowed tobe put forward in the course of the proceedingsinarecourse asthejusticeofthecase mayrequi re', this practice has developed in accordance, largely. with rule 19 of the Supreme ConstitutionalCourtRules,and there does not exist here any presenbed by legislation timelimit after which additional reasons or grounds cannot be advanced » See also Civil Appeal 6300, Istambouh Bros ν TheDirectorof the Department oTCustoms &Excise (yetunreported)*(Judgment 25 delivered on 17 12 86) Counsel for the respondent,on the otherhand, submitted that the said regulations are only internalrules which concernonlythe Joint Advisory Selection Committee, the purpose of which is solely toadvise theAuthonty, such advice notbeing binding,and 30 which Committee takes no part in the decision making process and in the final selection Inany event itwas argued, the respon dent Authonty did not follow such regulations It was further submittedthatsection3
(2)of the PublicCorporations (Regulation of Personnel Matters) Law, 1970 (Law 61 of 1970), does not 3 5 impose any obligation on the respondentAuthonty to issue such regulations butonlyan obligation tofollow suchregulations when they exist In the present case there were none concerning the respondent Authonty 'Nowreported,n
(1986)3CLR 465 65 Uachtos J. Pampaka and Another v. EJVX.
(1987)Inthecase ofKofterosv.EAC
(1985)3C.L.R.394wherethe lidity of the regulations in question was challenged, it was cidedthattheywereinvalidasnothavingreceivedtheapproval theCouncilofMinistersandasnothavingbeenpublishedinthe ficialGazetteoftheRepublic. 5 Relevantisthefollowingpassagewhichappearsatp.403ofthe dreport: «Itwassubmitted bycounselfortherespondentsthattheir publication was not necessary as they were simply internal" rules.ReliancewasplacedonConstantinouv.CY.T.A.
(1980)10 3 C.L.R. 243, at pp.252-253. Constantinou case is ajudgment of aJudge of co-ordinate jurisdiction.ItwasnotfollowedinArsalidesandAnotherv. CY.T.A.andinChristosSofokleous v. TheElectricityAuthorityofCyprusCase No.232/ 82-unreported). Appeal was taken against the decision in 15 Constantinoucase.Thesubjudicedecisionwasrevokedby agreement of the parties and sanction of the Court, and the respondent Authority undertook to reconsider the matter. The effect of Constantinoucase was extinguished by the outcome of the appeal which was sanctioned by the Full 20 BenchoftheSupreme Court. The sub judice decision for promotion of the interested partyisnullandvoidastakenundernon-existentinLawrules orregulations.» Anappeal wasfiledagainsttheaforesaid judgmentinKofteros 25 ;twassubsequently withdrawn.Kofteroscase,supra,wascited thapprovalinthecaseofChristosSawa v.EAC
(1986)3C.L.R. > and Georghios Gavrielv.EAC(Case No.296/821(yetunre>rted)*wherethesaidregulationswerealsoconsidered invalid. That the regulations in question may concern only the Joint 30 lvisoryCommitteeandnottheAuthorityitself,asarguedbythe spondents, does not validate the decision because such deci>n,the final selection of the candidates, was based on a prelection madeforthatpurposebytheJointAdvisoryCommittee 1 the basis of regulations which have been considered invalid 35 dsuchpre-selection ispartandparcelofthefinalact. As this matter in effect disposes of the case, I consider it Sowreportedin
(1986)3CLR1465 66 3 C.L.R. Pampaka and Another v. E.A.C. Malachto·. unnecessary to pronounce on the remaining grounds of lawpui forward onbehalf oftheapplicants. Intheresult,thisrecoursesucceedsandthesubjudicedecision isherebyannulled. 5 Therewillbenoorderastocosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 67