clr/1988/1988_3_1147.pdf

(1986)3CJLJi.508adopted. 5 10 15 Police Force—Promotions—Temporarypromotionsfollowing annulmentof permanentpromotions—The Police(General) Regulations, 1958, Reg. 10—Suchpromotionswerenotmadeafterconsiderationofmerits,qualifications,seniority^-Annulled—ParpasandOthersv. TheRepublic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 508. ^ TheSupremeCourt annulled a number of promotions totherankof Sergeant,onthegroundthattheyweremadeonthebasisofinvalidregulations. Following such annulment, theinterested parties,whosepromotions werethusannulled,received temporarypromotionstothesamerank,but withoutpriorconsiderationofmerits,qualificationsandseniority. This recourse impugns the validity of such temporary promotions, , which were made under Reg. 10of the Police (General) Regulations, 1147

(1988)Apeitos v. Republic 1958. Held,annulling thesubjudicedecision:In thelightofthedecisionin Paipa'scase(supra)thesubjudicepromotionshavetobeannulledonthe followinggrounds,namely: (a)They havenotbeenmadeafter dueevaluationofthesuitabilityof thosememebersoftheforceeligibleforpromotion. 5 (b)Theyweremadeinabuseofpowerinthattheywerepermanentpromotionsundertheguiseoftemporariness. (c)Theywerenotmadeforanyfixedtermorforanyforeseeableperiod,butforanindefiniteperiodoftime. 10 Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: ParpasandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 508. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to promote theinterestedpartiestotherankof Sergeant inpreference andinstead oftheapplicant. K.Talarides,for the applicant. M. Flourentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for therespondent. 20 T.Papadopoulos, for interestedpartiesCh.Charalambides,L. Michael,P.Panayiotou andG. Stavrou. P.Papageorghiou, forinterestedpartyA.Kerimi. Cur. adv. vult. 25 A. LOIZOU P. read the following judgment. This case had 1148 3 C.L.R. 5 Apeitosv.Republic A. LoizouP. beenoriginally assignedtoMr.JusticeLoris.butafter hisretirement Itookitshearing onthe25thJanuary 1988anddirection wasmadebycounselofthepartiesthatsamewastobeheardde novobymeandthateverythingfiledalreadywouldbedeemedto havebeenfiled beforeme. InRecourseNo.6/85,(SeeHerodotouandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R. 1768), theSupremeCourtannulledthe promotion ofanumberofPoliceConstables totherankofSergeantonthegroundthattheywereeffected onthebasisofinvalid JQ Regulations.FollowingsuchannulmenttheChiefofPoliceinvitedtheDivisionalandUnitPoliceCommandersatameetingon the26thJuly 1985,andhandedtothemaletterinordertoinform accordinglythepersonsaffected. InthecourseofthesamemeetingtheChiefofPoliceexchangedviewswiththeDivisionaland ,c UnitCommanders withregardtofinding thebestwayof filling thegapswhichwereunavoidablycreated.Attheabovemeeting therewas,also,placedbeforetheDivisionalCommandersaplan forrevisedestablishmentofthepersonneloftheForcewhichhad beenpreparedrecendybyagroupofofficers underthechairmanshipoftheDeputyChiefofPolice. 2 * 35 On the basis of the matters which had been discussed as above,theDivisionalCommanderrecommendedthatthepersons affected, i.e.theinterestedpartiesinthesaidRecourseNo.6/85, bepromoted temporarily sincetherearosetheneedtoassignto themthedutiesof ahigherrank(underRegulation 10)eitherat theposttheywereservingatthattime,orelsewhereaccordingto therequirementsoftheestablishmentreferred toabove,asbeing consideredsuitabletoundertakesuchduties. After considering thesaidestablishment inconjunction with theexistingnumberofthemembersoftheForceateach -Unit, theChiefofPolicedecidedtomaketemporarypromotions.Such astepwasconsideredbytheChiefofPoliceindispensableinorder to achieve the smooth functioning of thePoliceForceand avoidthethreatofbreachoftheorder,discipline,andgoodperformanceoftheForceuntilthepermanentresolutionoftheprob1149 A. Loizou P. Apeitos v. Republic

(1988)lem. Thereafter the Chief of Police prepared a list of those to whom heintendedtoassigntheperformance ofduties of ahigher rank and sought theapproval of theMinister of Interiorfor their promotion with effect from 12thAugust

1. The Minister of Interior,approved thepromotionsof theconstables recommended 5 by theChief ofPolice. As against thesepromotionstheapplicantfiledthisrecourse by means of which he challenges thevalidity of thepromotions of interested parties Androulla Kerimi,Charalambos Charalambous, Leonidas Michael, Panayiotis Panayiotou, Stavros Stavrou and JQ Georghios Stavrou. According totheopposition inmaking thesubjudice promo­ tions theChief ofPoliceactedin accordancewith thelegal advice of the Attorney—General of theRepublic dated the 31st May, 1985 (Appendix "D" totheopposition.),which was giveninrela- 15 tion totheannulmentof thepromotions totherank of Chief In­ spectorfromthatof Inspector.Thesaidadvice sofar as relevant reads: "Εφόσον υπάρχει πράγματιδιοικητικό πρόβλημα τέ­ τοιας φύσεως επαφίεται σε σας ναεφαρμόσετε το θεσμό 20 των προσωρινών προαγωγώνσύμφωνα με τιςδιατάξεις τουκανονισμού10τωνπερίΑστυνομίας ΓενικώνΚανονι­ σμών πουδεν έχει τροποποιηθεί μετά το Νόμο29/
2. Μιατέτοιαενέργεια όμως θαπρέπειναγίνει μεβάση νό­ μιμα κριτήριαάλλως πωςκινδυνεύει ναακυρωθεί κατό- 2 s πιν νέαςπροσφυγήςεπηρεαζόμενωνπροσώπων.Σαν απο­ κλειστικά νόμιμα κριτήρια στη προκειμένη περίπτωση είναι οι πραγματικές ανάγκεςτης Αστυνομίας καιηκα­ ταλληλότηταβάσειτηςαξίαςτωνπροσώπων πουπροτίθεσθε ναπροάξετεπροσωρινάστις εν λόγω θέσεις. Μιατέ­ τοια προαγωγήαποτελεί εντελώς νέα διοικητικήπράξη που θα ισχύει απότηνημέραεκδόσεως της και όχι ανα­ δρομικά καιθαπρέπει να βασίζεταιστα σημερινά πραγ­ ματικά γεγονότα (προσόντα, αξία κ.λ.π.) σχετικά με τα πρόσωπαπουθαπροάξετεανεξάρτητααπότηναξιόλογη- 35 1150 3 C.L.R. 5 Φ Ie 2" 25 30 35 Apeitos v. Republic A.Loizou P. σητουςπουέγινε στοπαρελθόν μεβάσηδιαδικασίεςπου προβλέπονταιαπότουςκανονισμούςπουακυρώθησαν. Η προηγούμενη λοιπόν αξιολόγηση των προσώπωντων οποίωνοιπροαγωγέςακυρώθησανθαπρέπει νααγνοηθεί και να στηρίξετε τη νέα σας απόφαση γιαπροσωρινές προαγωγές στασημερινάδεδομέναβάσεινέας αξιολόγη­ σηςανεπηρέαστηςαπότογεγονόςότιορισμένοι απότους υποψηφίους έχουνστο παρελθόν προαχθεί στις ίδιες θέ­ σειςσαναποτέλεσματηςακυρωθείσηςπροαγωγήςή έχουν ασκήσειστηπράξη(σαναποτέλεσματων ιδίωνπροαγω­ γών)καθήκοντακαιεξουσίες στοβαθμότονοποίοθαδιε­ νεργηθούνοιπροσωρινέςπροαγωγές." ("Since indeed thereexists an administrative problem of suchanature,itis uptoyou toapply thedeviceoftemporary promotionsinaccordancewith theprovisions of Regulation 10 of the Police (General) Regulations, which has not been amended by means of Law 29/
3. Such an act,however, hastobeeffected onthebasisoflawful criteriafor otherwiseit runs therisk of being annulled upon a new recourse by the persons affected. Theexclusive lawful criteria intheinstant casearethe actualneedsof thepoliceandthesuitability on the basisof themeritof thepersonswhomyouintendtopromote temporarilytothesaidposts.Suchapromotionconstitutes en­ tirely anewadministrativeactwhichwillbeeffective fromthe dateof itsissueandnotretrospectively andmustbebasedon the present facts (qualifications, merit,etc.), relating tothe persons who will be promoted independently of their past evaluation on the basis of theprocedures envisaged by the. Regulations which were invalidated. Therefore the previous evaluations of thepersons whosepromotionshave beenan­ nulledshouldbeignoredandyournewdecisionfortemporary promotions should befounded onpresentday realities onthe basisof anewevaluation unaffected by thefact thatsomeof thecandidateshadinthepastbeenpromotedtothe,sameposts as aresult of theannulledpromotion orhadactually (asa re­ sult of thesamepromotions)exercisedtheduties andpowers of theranktowhichthe temporarypromotionswillbemade.") 1151 A.LoizouP. Apeitosv. Republic

(1988)Fromastudyofthematerialbeforemethereclearlyemergethe following: (a)Thatthesubjudicepromotionswerenotmadefor "aforeseeableshortduration"butforanindefiniteperiod. (b)Thatbymeansofthesubjudicedecisiontherewerepro- 5 motedtotherankofactingSergeantthepersons("InterestedParties"), whose promotion had been annulled by means of the abovedecisionoftheSupremeCourt. (c)That,contrarytotheaboveadviceoftheAttorney-General, therehasnottakenplaceanyconsiderationofthemeritsofallthe 10 candidatesoranewevaluationofthecandidates. Underthe said Regulation 10, amemberof theForcewhois requiredtoperformthedutiesofahigherrankcanbepromotedto thisposttemporarilybytheChiefofPolice. Oneofthegroundsoflawinsupportoftherecoursewasthat 15 intakingthesubjudicedecision,therespondentsviolatedthelegalruleapplicablein suchcases,i.e.thecriteriaofselectionapplicabletoallPublicLawpromotions,namelyseniority,qualificationsandmerit. InParpas andOthersv.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.508, 20 Pikis, J., had todeal with exactly the samesituation for in the Parpascasetheinterestedpartieswhosepromotionstotherankof Chief InspectorwereannulledbytheSupremeCourtwereagain promotedtotheabovepostonatemporarybasis.Alsoinmaking thesubjudicepromotionstheChiefofPolicepurportedtoacton 25 thebasisoftheaboveadviceoftheAttorney-General oftheRepublic. Thegroundsonwhich theapplicantsin theParpascasechallenged the subjudice temporary promotions appear mainly at p.514ofthereportandreadasfollows: 1152 30 3 C.L.R. Apeitos v. Republic A.LoizouP. "Theabovepromotionsweremadecontrarytotheletterand spirit of theadvice of theDeputy Attorney-General. Mr. Lou­ caidesrecommended,inthefirstplace,thattemporary appoint­ mentsshould,if possible, beavoided. NeithertheChiefof the Police northeMinister seems tohave givenany consideration tothis advice. Worsestill,they proceeded tomake temporary promotionscontrary totheadvice renderedby Mr.Loucaides. While headvisedthattemporary promotions should be made after aprocess of selection following aninquiry intothemerits of theofficers eligible for promotion,thesubjudice promo­ tions weremadewithout holding afresh inquiry andwithout consideration of themeritsandsuitability of anyoneotherthan thosepromoted." Pikis,J.,in annulling thesubjudice temporary promotions on anumberof grounds stated thefollowing atpp.516-517: . 20 25 30 35 "Further,theadvice of Mr.Loucaides thatthepromotions, even if temporary ought tohave been madeafter due evalua­ tionof thesuitability of thosemembers of theforce eligiblefor promotion, is wellfounded inlaw. As itemerges from thede­ cision of theFullBenchof theSupreme CourtinRepublic v. Mylonas

(1985)3C.L.R. 16Ό8, itis inherentin theconceptof 'temporary appointment' or 'promotion'. As the Supreme Courtobserved, any attempttomaketemporary promotions on any otherbasis,'itsavourseitherof asecondmentor anunor­ thodoxdisguisedfillingof thevacancy'. Theratioof theabove decision is thatitis anabuse of power tomakeappointments orpromotionsundertheguiseof temporariness, asindeedap­ pears tobethecase with thepromotions hereunderconsidera­ tion.Ninemonthsafter thetemporary promotionswere made, nooneknows orcanpredictwith anydegree of certainty when theorganic posts willbepermanently filled.Mr.Florentzosin­ formed usthismay becomepossiblewhennewregulationsare approved and enacted. When this will become possible, no oneknows. Theinescapable inference is thattheChief of Po­ lice,aswellastheMinister of Interior,effected thetemporary promotionswithoutproperregardtothepower vestedin them. 1153 A.LoizouP. Apeitosv.Republic

(1988)Thetemporarypromotionswerenotmadeforanyfixedterm orforanyforeseeableperiod;theyweremadeforanindefinite futureperiodoftime.Thisisyetanothergroundforannulling thedecision." AdoptingasIdothereasoningofPikis,J.,intheParpascase, 5 (supra)Ideclarethesubjudicepromotionsnullandvoidbecause: (a)Theyhavenotbeenmadeafterdueevaluationofthesuitabilityofthosemembersoftheforceeligibleforpromotion. (b)Theyweremadein abuseofpowerinthattheywerepermanentpromotionsundertheguiseoftemporariness. 10 (c)Theywerenotmadeforanyfixedtermorforanyforeseeableperiod,butforanindefiniteperiodoftime. In viewof the aboveconclusion Ineednotdeal with theremaininggroundsoflaw. Intheresultthesubjudicepromotionsareannulled,butinthe circumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. *' Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1154