clr/1988/1988_3_1549.pdf

(1)IOANNISK.IOANNIDES,

(2)CHRISTAKISCHAR. CHRISTOFI, •' v . .. Applicants, . . .'• 'i THECYPRUS TELECOMMUNICATIONSAUTHORITY, . ... , Respondents. (ConsolidatedCasesNos.521187&568/87). Public corporations—Promotions—The CyprusTelecommunicationsAuthori­ ty—TheCyprus' Telecommunications AuthorityGeneral Regulations, 1982,Regs, 10

(5)(e)and 24

(7)—Appointment andpromotion ofper­ sonnelbyabodyotherthan theBoard—Ultraviressection 10ofCap. 302, as amended—PolycarpouandAnother v. CYTA

(1988)3CLJt. 1461fol­ io-wed. Public Corporations—Promotions—The Cyprus TelecomunicationsAuthori· ' < ty—Vacanciesinthepostofsection head—Respondentsconsideredvacan• ciesasbeingvacanciesindifferentbranchesandspecialization—Acourse contrary tothe regulations—The Cyprus TelecommunicationsAuthority GeneralRegulations, 1982,Regs.4

(3)(B)and8

(1)(B)(a)—Tilliridesv. CYTA

(1987)3 CMM. 2071 adopted. PublicCorporations—Promotions—TheCuprusTelecommunicationsAuthori'' ty—TheCyprus Telecommunications AuthorityGeneral Regulations, 1982,Reg. 10

(7),

(8);

(9),

(10)and

(13)-Failure tocompilepromotion tables—Groundforannulment. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearinthejudgmentof theCourt • ^ • _ •r • · ι, ι Subjudicedecisionannulled. ' ' ' < - Noorderas tocosts. 1549 Ioannides & Another v. CY.T.A.

(1988)Casesreferredto: PolycarpouandAnother v. CY.TA

(1988)3C.L.R. 1461; Vakisv.TheRepublic

(1985)3C.L.R. 534; Tillirides v. CYTA

(1987)3C.L.R.2071; Tillirides v. CY.TA.

(1987)3C.L.R.920; Alvanisv. CYTA

(1985)3C.L.R.

1. Recourses. Recourses against thedecision oftherespodents topromote the interested party tothepostofSectionHead (Administrative Personnel)inpreference andinsteadoftheapplicants. ^Q AS. Angelides, fortheapplicantinCase No.521/
2. /.Typographos,forapplicantinCaseNo.568/
3. A. Hadjioannou,forrespondents. KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. The applicants challenge bythis recourse thevalidity ofthedecision ofthere- 15 spondentauthority topromotetheinterestedpartyLambrosDamianoutothepostofSectionHead(Administrative Personnel) (Tomearchis)insteadofandinpreference totheapplicants. Thepost inquestion isapromotionpostandbeforethesubju­ dicedecision theapplicantsandtheinterestedpartywereholding 20 thepostofSubsection Head (Υποτομεάρχης). The Personnel Committeemeton 22.5.1987 toconsider the question ofpromotionsandtheyselected theinterested partyto fill the vacancy under Regulation 54

(2).Therecommendation abouttheinterestedparty was madeonthebasisofRegulation56 25 1550 3 C.L.R.

(7)'(c). Ioannides &Another v. CY.T.A. ' J Kourris J. : TheGeneralManagerof therespondentauthority by hisdeci­ sion dated25.5.1987confirmed thepromotionof theinterested party tothepostinquestion. .. · · '. ' I * ' r ' ', .. ' . . '.»·; ' •' '·. 'J ." -f 'ι " ·' η ' * -.:. , > " Ί Theapplicants,feeling aggrieved,filedthepresent recourses againstthesub,judicedecision andtheybasedtheirrecourseson' thefollowinggrounds: . ..

(1)Regulations 10and24of theCyprusTelecommunications Authority, (GeneralRegulations 1982) by virtue of which the promotionwas made, areultravirestheenabling section 10ofthe InlandTelecommunications ServiceLaw,.Cap.,302 (asam'end^ - •y • · ,i. Λ χ , , ; > .' \ , > ! " ' .ι ' • • ^ - · * • '- *

(2)The sub judice decision was takenun breach of trie said regulations. The.breachresultedfrom theactionof the'respondentstodi-. videtheposttobefilledaridgroup tHemaccordingtothe different* branches of thetechnicalservices andproceedtomake the prb% motions'according tothatdivision which limits theselection of candidatesaccordingtaspecializatipn. ' t ' ,, ,.

(3)Failuretocompilepromotiontables inaccordancewiththe provisionsof Regulations 10

(7),

(8),

(9),

(10)and

(13). .

(4)Invalidity orcohfidential reportsconsidered by the respon-, dentsfor lackof'compliance*with theprovisionsof Regulation23 r:

(4).'; ';,. ' " · ·· ••: "*' • •••••·-· ·: ι. t

(5)Thesubjudicedecision ischallenged for failureonthepart of therespondentstopay dueregardtothesuperior qualification forpromotionof the'appticantscomparedtotheinterestedparty.,.-. Withregardtoground 1, where thecomparisonis thatthesaid regulations areultratheenabling law, thequestion whichfalls for 1551 • Kourris J. Ioannides & Another v. CV.T.A.

(1988)determination is whether Regulations 10

(5)(b)and24

(7)that provide for the appointmentand promotion of personnel by a body otherthantheBoardoftheAuthority isultraviresthelaw. Thisissuewas expoundedbyPikis,J.inAndreasPolycarpou and Another v. The Cyprus Telecommunications Authority, 5

(1988)3 C.L.R. 1461,concludingthatthe said Regulations are ultra vires the enabling section 10of Cap. 302 (as amended).I fully agree with thatdecision andIadoptitandIhavenothing useful toadd and Ialso hold thatRegulations 10

(5)(b)and24

(7)of theCyprus Telecommunications Authority,General Regu- 1Q lations 1982 are ultravires theenabling section 10of Cap. 302 (as amended)regarding thepromotionand appointmentof per­ sonnelby abody otherthan theBoardof theAuthority and con­ sequently invalid renderingthesubjudicedecisiondefective and is hereby setaside.Theprovisions of Law 23/62 areirrelevant to ,the validity of theRegulationsinquestion whichis.alsotackled by Judge Pikis inhisJudgment. Iproposenowtoexaminetheissuewhetherthesubjudicede­ cision would again be defective for breach of the Regulations themselves, assuming that the Regulations are valid, which is ~o raised by ground2above. Thispointwas again tackled inPoly­ carpou andAnother(supra) andwas found tobecontrary to the principles adoptedin thecaseof Voids v.TheRepublic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 534 and Tillirides v. CY.TA.

(1987)3 C.L.R.2071. In thelattercaseSawides, J.heldthattherespondentswrong- «ς ly andcontrarytoRegulation4

(3)Β consideredthevacancies as being vacancies indifferent branchesandspecialization, depriv­ ing thustheapplicantof theopportunityof beingcomparedwith theinterestedparties.He also heldthatthisRegulationshouldbe read together with Regulation 8

(1)Β(a).Ialso fully agree with theabovedecisions andIadoptthemandIalsofindmatthedivi­ sionof personneleligiblefor promotionintocategories otherthan those specified by thelaw is inbreachof theRegulations and in theresulttherecoursealsofailsonthisissue. 1552 3C.L.R. Ioannides &Another v.CY.T.A. KourrisJ. Ishallnowdealwiththeissueofthepromotiontables.Regulations 10

(7),

(8),

(9),

(10)and

(13)provideforthecompilation ofpromotiontableseveryyearstatingtheclaimsofpersonnelto promotion.Nopromotiontableswerepreparedinthiscase rele5 vanttotheexpectationofeligiblecandidatestopromotion,afact thatrendersthepromotionseffected intheabsenceofthemabortive.This issue,wasalsodealt with by Pikis, J. in the caseof Georghios Tillirides v.CY.TA.

(1987)3C.L.R.920whereat p.925hestated: 10 ,c "Tomycomprehension,therelevantprovisionsofRegulation 10aimtoestablish anessentialprerequisiteforthevalid exerciseof thepowertopromote,intended toforewarn personneloftheirchancesofpromotionandsafeguard their right toobjectintimewithaviewtoeliminatingerrorsorabuseof powerinthecompilation ofthetables.IntheabsenceofevidencethatfailuretoheedtherelevantprovisionsofRegulation 10had nonoticeableeffects on the subjudice decision, the omissionmustbetreatedasconsequential andthedecisionis liabletobesetasideonthatadditionalgroundaswell." 20 Inowproposetodealwithground4withregardtotheconfidentialreports.Counselfor theapplicantsarguedthattheconfidentialreports,whichformpartofthefilesofthecandidatesand weretakenintoconsideration by therespondentsweremadein breachoftheprovisionsofRegulation23

(4)inthattheadministrativeboardoftherespondentdidnottakeanydecisionastothe formofthereportsandtheofficers responsibleformakingthem. In thecaseofAlvanis v.CY.TA.

(1985)3C.L.R.2695the promotionswereannulledonthisgroundbutafterthedecisionof theAlvaniscasetherespondentscomplied withtheRegulations andthisappearsfromexhibitAinbothrecourses.Therefore,this groundfails. Inthelightoftheabove,Idonotproposetoexaminewhether theapplicantswerestrikinglysuperiortotheinterestedparty. 1553 KourrisJ. Ioannides&Another v.CY.T.A.

(1988)Inviewof theabove,thesubjudicedecisionisdeclaredpursuanttoparagraph 4(b)of Article 146of theConstitution tobe void andof noeffect whatsoever.In theexerciseofmydiscretion, Imakenoorderforcosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. 5 Noorderastocosts. 1554