(1988)1988May28 [PIKIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANDREASHADJISOTERIOUANDOTHERS, Applicants, v. THECUPRUSTELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY, Respondents. (ConsolidatedCasesNos.520187,549/87and656/87). Annulment of an administrative act—Reconsideration of matter— Administrationshouldaddressitselftothelegalandfactualbackgroundobtaining atthetime ofthe annulleddecision—Annulmentofpromotionsin respect of2posts—Reconsideration ofthematter offillingthem afresh alongwithconsideration ofthefillingoftwo otherposts,which hadbe- 5 comevacantafterthetimeoftheannulleddecision—Groundofannulment —Taking intoconsiderationaservicereportinrespectofaperiodthatfollowedtheannulleddecision—Groundofannulment. PublicCorporations—CyprusTelecommunicationsAuthority—Promotions— ThePersonneloftheCyprusTelecommunicationsAuthorityGeneralRegu- in lotions, 1982, Reg.10—Promotion tables—A necessaryprerequisitefor theexerciseofthepowertopromote. Thefactsofthiscaseappearfrom thehereinaboveheadnote. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferrredto: Republic v.Saferides
(1985)3CLR. 163; 1092 15 3 C.L.R. Hadjisoteriou & Others v.CY.TA. loannidesandAnother v.Republic
(1979)3C.L.R. 628; Kyprianidesv. Republic
(1968)3C.L.R. 653; Tyllirides v.CYTA
(1987)3C.L.R. 920. Recourses. ^ Recourses against thedecision of therespondents topromote the interestedparties tothepost of Section Leader (TechnicalPer sonnel) inPreference and instead of the applicants. A. Angelides, for applicants. A. Hadjioannou, for respondents. 10 15 20 25 Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. On May 5, 1987, the Supreme Court,in exercise of the powers possessed under Arti cle 146 of the Constitution, annulled a decision of the respon dents taken on May.28, 1986, whereby Christos Kyriacou and Costas Serghiou had been promotedtothepost of Section Leader (Technical Personnel) - Tyllirides v. CY.TA.
(1987)3 C.L.R.
- Thereupon therespondents came underaduty toreconsider their decision and address themselves anew to the task of filling the two posts inquestion. Itis settled thatin sodoing they had to address themselves tothelegal andfactual background obtaining at thetimeof theannulled decision, thatis, on 20/5/
- (See,in ter alia, Republic v. Safirides
(1985)3 C.L.R. 163; loannides and Another v. Republic
(1979)3 C.L.R. 628 and Kyprianides v. Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 653). Instead of observing the framework relevant toreconsideration of their decision, theycon sidered the matter anew and in so doing failed to carry out the duty cast uponthemuponjudicial annulmentof administrative ac tion. Below, we explain thereasons thatled tothis failure: Firsdy, they didnotconfine reconsideration tothefilling of the 1093 ί Pikis J. Hadjisoteriou &Others v.CY.TA.
(1988)two vacant posts the subject matter of the decision of May 28, 1986.They filled in addition, twootherpoststhatbecamevacant on a date subsequent to 28.5.86.That they did not confine their inquiry tothelegal and factual framework of25.5.86,isalsoevident from thefact that thepromotions made werenotgivenretro- 5 active effect. Secondly, they failed toremedy legal omissions that invalidated theirdecision, in thefirst place.Seemingly, theymade thepromotions in the absence of promotion tables,aprerequisite for the valid exercise of theirpowers, astheCourtdeclared inTyllirides, JQ supra. In Tyllirides, supra, the Court declared that compliance with theprovisions of Regulation 10governing promotion tables, is a prerequisite for the valid exercise of the functions of therespondents. No promotion tables had been prepared for the year 1986; therefore, thegap noticed bytheCourt in Tyllirides,supra, ,<remained wideopen. Thirdly, they did not confine theirinquiry tothefactual material that was permissible toconsulton 28.5.86.In addition to the reports for the year 1985 that were properly before the respondents (after the specification of the forms of evaluation reports 20 made on 8.11.85), they took into consideration reports for the year 1986 and, in the case of Christos Kyriacou, for the year 1987aswell.Inaccordance with Regulation 23
(4)theevaluation reports must befiled yearly. Forall theabovereasons Ifeel constrained toannuloncemore ~<; thepromotions made. The subjudice decision isdeclared tobewholly void pursuant to theprovisions ofpara.4 (b)ofArticle 146of the Constitution. Subjudice decisionannulled. 1094