3 C.L.R. 1988May28 [STYUANIDES,J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION SOTERISL.PANAYIS, Applicant, v. THEPORTSAUTHORITY OFCYPRUS, Respondents. (CasesNo. 451/86). ConstitutionalLaw—Law ofnecessity—Constitution,Articles 122 and125— Public Service Commission—CyprusPorts Authority —The power of the Board topromote employeesoftheAuthority—A departurefromtheaforesaidconstitutionalprovisionsjustified by the Lawofnecessity. Public Corporations—Promotions—The Cyprus Ports Interviews—Failuretohold—Notagroundfor annulment. Authority— Reasoning of an administration act—Thephilosophy why reasoning is required—Factorstakenintoconsiderationmustbespecificallymentioned— Reasoning must contain the way of thinking of the administration on the facts—What is due reasoning isa question of degree—It may be supplemented from thematerial inthefile—Inthiscase,which concerns promotions,thereasoningisfaulty, becauseitdoesnotconveywhytheinterested partywaspreferredtotheapplicant. Theprinciplesapplied tothefactsof thiscase,whichconcernspromotionsmadeby theBoardof therespondentPublicCorporation, sufficiently appearfrom thehereinabovenotes. Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderasto costs. 1095 Panayis v. Ports Authority
(1988)Casesreferredto: HjiGeorghiouv. TheCyprusTourismOrganisation
(1986)3C.L.R.1110; The CyprusTourism Organisation v.HadjiDemetriou,
(1987)3C.L.R. 780, Republicv.Georghiaaes
(1972)3C.L.R. 594; 5 GeorghiadesandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R.653; HjiSawa v.TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R. 174; TsouloftasandOthersv. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.426; Marangos v.TheRepublic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 682; Co-OperativeSocietyofAlonav.TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R.222. 10 Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisonoftherespondenttopromotethe interestedparty tothepostof PortEngineDriver, 1stGradein preference andinsteadoftheapplicant. Ph.Valiantis, fortheapplicant. 15 N.Papaefstathiou, fortherespondents. Cur.adv. vult. STYLIANIDES J. read the following judgment. The relief prayed byapplicant inthisrecourse istheannulmentofthepromotion of Georghios G.Panayi (interested party) tothepostof ^ Port Engine Driver, 1st Grade, with effect from 15.6.1986,in preference andinsteadoftheapplicant. TheRespondentsareaCorporation establishedbytheCyprus 1096 3 C.L.R. Panayis v. Ports Authority Stylianides J. PortsAuthorityLaw, 1973(LawNo.38/73).ThePortsAuthorityisadministeredbyaBoard,consistingofsevenmembers. 5 10 Itwassubmittedbylearnedcounselfortheapplicantthatthe servantsoftheAuthorityarewithintheambitofthedefinitionof Public Service in Article 122of the Constitution and the only competent authority for appointment, promotion ,etc.,of them, isthePublicServiceCommissionenvisagedinArticle 125ofthe Constitution.TheBoardoftheAuthorityhas,therefore,nocompetence. The Public Service Commission, set up under the Constitution,ceasedtofunction andasubstitutewasestablished byLaw 33/67withpowerlimitedtotheservantsoftheGovernment. InKrinosI HjiGeorghiou, v.TheCyprusTourism Organisation
(1986)3C.L.R.1110,whereasimilarcontentionwasraised 15 withregardtotheCyprusTourism Organisation, whichwasestablishedbyLawNo.54/69,1decidedthatthecontraventionsof thechapteroftheConstitutiondealingwiththepublicserviceare justified by thelawof necessity andconsequently the statutory provisions of the CyprusTourism Organisation Law 1969ena20 blingtheCyprusTourism Organisation toappoint and confirm, emplace,promote,etc., of itsemployees,werenot unconstitutional. (See,also,RevisionalAppealNo.665,TheCyprusTourismOrganisationv.AgniHadjiDemetriou
(1987)3C.L.R.780). 25 Thesubmissionofcounselinviewoftheaforesaidjudicialdecisionsisuntenable. ThepowersoftheRespondentswithregardtopromotionsare found insections 19and35ofLaw38/
- 30 TheBoardbyvirtueofitspowersmadeRegulations..Thematerial Regulations for the case are the Cyprus Ports Authority (Scheme and OtherConditions of Serviceof Officers) Regulations,
- 1097 Stylianides J. Panayisv. PortsAuthority
(1988)Thetermsandconditionsof serviceareassimilated tothoseof civil servants as set out in the Public Service Laws (1967 1983).The promotionof theofficers is decided on thebasisof their merit,qualifications andseniority which is ascertained by applying mutatis mutandis theprovisions of section 46 of the 5 Public ServiceLaw. TheBoardhaspower toappointanAdvisory Committee.An Advisory Committee,which ineffect hasthe dutiesandrightsof theDepartmentalBoardestablished undersection36of thePublic ServiceLaw, was set up. 10 This Advisory Committee, havingconsidered 19applicants, recommended as suitable for promotion,in alphabetical order, four, includingtheapplicantandtheinterestedparty. TheBoardonwhomtheultimateresponsibility for the promo tions restreachedthesubjudicedecision,whichreads:- 15 'ToΣυμβούλιο(α) Αφού έλαβε υπόψη όλα τα στοιχεία που είχε στη διάθεσητουκαιάκουσετις απόψειςτηςαρμόδιαςυπηρε σιακήςεπιτροπής,αποφάσισενόπωςπροσφερθείπροαγω γήστηθέση τουΛιμενικού Μηχανοδηγού,1ηςΤάξηςστον 20 κ.ΓεώργιοΓ.Παναγή,Λιμενικό Μηχανοδηγό2ηςΤάξης." (" TheBoard(a)Having takenintoconsiderationallthe materialbefore it andheardtheviewsof theappropriateservicecommittee,de cided tooffer promotion todiepostofPortEngineDriver, 1st 25 Grade,toMr.Georghios G. Panayi, PortEngineDriver2nd Grade.") This decision is challenged onthegrounds thattheapplicant was notheardby theBoard;thatitis notduly oratallreasoned; that theinterestedparty did nothave therequiredqualifications; 1098 30 , 3C.L.R. Panayis v. Ports Authority Stylianides J. and that the Board failed to select the most suitable candidate, havingregard tothethreeestablished factors, i.e.merit, qualification and seniority. 5 10 May I say that the first ground relates to interviews. Interviews, according to the case law of this Court, though they do not havea statutory cloak, areauseful process,.whereby qualifications and merit, especially for high posts in thehierarchy, are ascertained. Performance at the interview is not a factor of its own;it much beweighed togetherwith allotherrelevant considerations.Itis notatall necessary for aBody tohold interview in thepromotion making process.Therefore this ground is untenable. ' After an interimdecision,evidence wasadduced that the "material"that theBoard hadbefore itconsisted of thepersonal files 15, and thefiles of theconfidential reportsof thefour candidatesrecommended,bytheServiceCommittee. 20 I have gone through their files, which areExhibits before me, and to say the least, neither.of them is strikingly superior to the other. It is not within myjudicial duty in this case to make any further comparison · 25 TheBoard should havemadeanevaluationof thematerialbeforeitand,onthethreefactors thatpromotions aredetermined, to recordinitsdecision thereasonsforpreferring thepromotee.The Board is a Public Collective Organ. They have to keep written recordsof theirproceedings andgivereasons for theirdecisions. 30 Therequirement ofduereasoning in administrative decisions has been stressed on more than one occasion by Judgments of this Court. Thephilosophy behind the requirement of reasoning isthatitspresenceexcludesarbitrarinessonthepartoftheadministrative organ and protects the administration against itself by preventing itfromtakingahastydecision.Thereasoning mustbe clear, that istosay,theconcretefactors upon which theadministration based its decision for the occasion under consideration 1099 StylianidesJ. Panayisv.PortsAuthority
(1988)mustbespecifically mentionedinsuchamannerastorenderpossibleitsjudicialcontrol.Itmustcontainthewayofthinkingofthe administrative organ on the relevant facts which constitute the foundation for thedecision. Areasoning whichdoesnot satisfy theseconditionscannotbeconsideredasduereasoning-(Repub- 5 lie(PublicServiceCommission)v.LefkosGeorghiades
(1972)3 C.L.R. 594,at p.690). InthecaseofpromotionsthePromotingBodyhastomakean evaluation of the candidates, a comparison between thecandidates, havingregard tothefactors thataretakenintoconsidera- JQ tion, andreachadecision after suchevaluation andcomparison. Thisprocessmustbereflected andrecordedintheirdecision. What is "duereasoning"is aquestion of degree dependent upon the natureof thedecision concerned.Solongasthedecisionconveys,onexaminationofitscontentsandthebackground thereto,thereasons why agiven decision istaken,it cannot be faulted for lackof duereasoning.Thereasoningmay beascertained andsupplemented from thematerial inthefile of theAdministration - (AthosG. Georghiades and Othersv. Republic (Public Service Commission)
(1967)3 C.L.R. 653, 666; GeorghiosHjiSawa v.Republic(CouncilofMinisters)
(1972)3 C.L.R. 174;AndreasTsouloftasandOthers v.TheRepublicof Cyprus
(1983)3C.L.R. 426;Marangosv.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.682;andCo-OperativeSocietyofAlonav.TheRepublicof Cyprus
(1986)3C.L.R. 222). 15 20 25 Thedecisionisfaulty.Thereasoningisdeficient.Thesubjudicedecision falls shortoftherequirementsofduereasoning.It doesnot convey thereasons whytheRespondentspreferred the interestedparty. The reasoning cannot be ascertained, or supplemented from thematerialinthefilesoftheapplicantandtheinterestedparty. It isnotfor thisCourttomakethenecessary evaluation and give thereasons for thedecision whichwerenotrecorded.This 1100 3C.L.R. Panayisv.Ports Authority Stylianides J. wasthetaskanddutyoftheRespondents. Inviewoftheforegoing,Iconsideritunnecessarytodealwith theothergroundsraisedbycounsel. 5 Subjudicedecisionisdeclarednullandvoidandofnoeffect, but,inthecircumstances,Imakenoorderastocosts, Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1101