clr/1988/1988_3_1655.pdf

(5)(e) and24A—Theseregulations are ultravires the law—Polycarpou and Another v. CYTA

(1988)3 CLJt. 1612 *and Demetriades and Others v. CYTA

(1988)3 CUR'. Ί589 adoptedPromotionsannulled. Thegroundfor theannulmentofthesubjudicepromotions issuf ficiently indicated in theheadnote. Sub judice decision annulled. Noorderas to costs. Casesreferredto: , • -. •• · .. .· ' • U , ',J. ' . :y . ' . _ . , \ ' ·' .( ' ',r'< ''· ' ,• , / . " ' • '• • Potycarpou andAnother v. CYTA .

(1988)3CLR. 1612;- , , . . ' - ι •· .· r ' i >V . . ι ii-r •' •_ * • - ' ' Demetriades andOthers v.CYTA,

(1988)3.CXA. 1589. . ' . · • ' ' " • •^.ϊ. •. -^ 1655 • J. ' .'. • /'•· Hadjivassiliou & Another v.CY.TA.

(1989)Recourses. Recourses against thedecision of therespondentsto promote theinterestedpartiestothepostof Service Supervisor Β (Finan­ cialPersonnel) inpreference andinsteadof the applicants. A. S. Angelides, for theapplicants. 5 A. Hadjiloannou, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. SAVVIDES J.readthefollowingjudgment Theapplicants in bothrecourseschallengethepromotionoftheinterestedpartiesto the post of Service Supervisor Β* (ΠροϊστάμενοςΥπηρεσίας Β)(FinancialPersonnel)intheCyprusTelecommunicationsAu­ thority. ίο By recourse No-497/87thepromotionof twointerestedpar­ ties,namelyGeorgeI.ChristodoulouandAndreas I.Pontikouis challengedwhereas byrecourseNo.561/87thepromotionof two 15 additional parties, namely, Ioannis Stassi and Andreas K. Georghiouischallenged. Thetwocases were heardtogether inviewof thefact thatthey presentcommonquestionsofbothlaw andfact. All partieswere holdingatthematerialtimethepostofClerk 20 Supervisor (Επιθεωρητής Γραφείου). Onthe21st May, 1987,theBoardofPersonnelof theAuthor­ itymetforthepurposeoffillingfivevacanciesinthepostofSer­ vice Supervisor B' and after considering theparticulars of the candidateseligiblefor promotiontotheabove post,selected the 25 four interestedpartiesforpromotiontoanequalnumberofvacan­ cies.Thepromotionswere approvedby adecisionoftheGeneral Managerof theAuthority datedthe25th May, 1987.Theappli­ cants, whowere placedby theBoardof Personnelontheshort 1656 3 C.L.R. Hadjivassiliou v. CY.TA. Sawides J. listbut werenot finally selected for promotion, filed thepresent recourses. The legal grounds on which counsel for applicants based his argumentarethat: > -· · 5 1. TheRegulations on thebasisof which thepromotions were madeareultravirestheLaw. 2.The servicereportsof thecandidates onwhich therespondents relied in reaching the-subjudice decision were irregularly prepared. 10 3. The respondents wrongly divided the vacancies and grouped themunderdifferent branches thuslimitingthe selection ofcandidatesaccordingto specialization. 4.The applicantswerebetterqualified thantheinterested parties.And · 15 20 25 5.The schemes of service for the subjudice post were never published. With regard to the first ground counsel for the applicants argued that the Law does not confer power on any other body thantheAuthorityitself toeffect promotionsandsuchpowercannot be delegated to another body in the absence of any specific provision in theLaw tothis effect. As aresult Regulation 10

(5)(b) which gives power to the Board of Personnel to promote a certainclassofofficers isultravirestheLawasisalsoRegulation 24A which provides for the setting up and functioning of such Board. • ' TherelevantRegulations aretheCyprus Telecommunications Authority (Personnel) (GeneralRegulations) 1982(Not.220/82), which wereissued under section 43of theInland Telecommunications ServiceLaw,Cap.302. 1657 Sawides J. Hadjivassiliou v. CY.T.A.

(1988)TheRegulationswithwhichweareconcernedareRegulations 10and24oftheRegulationswhichregulatethepromotionsand thefunctioning oftheServiceBoardsrespectively. Thevalidity of the sameRegulations wasconsidered bythis Court in two recent judgments. Thus, in the case of Andreas 5 Polycarpou &Anotherv.TheCyprusTelecommunicationsAuthority

(1988)3C.L.R. 1612Pikis, J. found that Regulations 10

(5)and24areultravirestheenablingLawinthattherespondenthasnopower,undertheprovisionsof theLaw,todelegate authorityinrespectofpromotionstoanothersubordinatebodyor 10 organ. TheothercaseisthecaseofNicosDemetriades &Othersv. The Cyprus TelecommunicationsAuthority

(1988)3C.L.R. 1589. In that case Stylianides, J., in delivering hisjudgment, madeadetailed andextensivereference tothelegalbackground 15 andcametotheconclusionthatRegulations 10

(5)(b),

(7)(a)and 24AarebeyondthescopeoftheenablingLaw,thatisultravires theLaw. Iaminfull agreementwiththeviewsexpressedbymylearned brothersintheaforesaid cases. 20 Section 10of Cap.302gavepowertotheAuthoritytoappoint itspersonnel,including theGeneral ManagerandtheSecretary. After theConstitution andinordertobringtheLawintoconformity withitsprovisions,thissection wasrepealed andreplaced bysection4ofLaw25/63withtheresultthatthetaskofappoint- 25 ingandpromoting servantsoftheAuthoritywasentrustedtothe Public Service Commission. After theenactment of Law 33/67 thepowerofthePublicServiceCommissionwaslimitedtopublicofficers only,thusleavingavacuuminrespectofthepowers ofappointmentsandpromotionsconcerningotherauthorities.As 30 aresult thePublic Corporations (Regulation of Personnel Matters)Law, 1970,(LawNo.61/70)wasenacted which conferred on theAuthorities concerned thepowerof appointing andpror. motingtheirofficers. Thus,thepowerofappointmentisnowen1658 3 C.L.R. Hadjivassiliou v.CY.T.A. SavvidesJ. trustedtotherespondentAuthority. 5 TheAuthority, in theexercise of thepowers vested init by s.43 oftheLaw issued theRegulationsinquestionin 1982. Regu­ lation 10

(5)provides thatexceptinthecaseofpromotionswithin theHighest Personnel,thepromotions aretobeeffected bythe Boadof Personnel of theAuthority. Also Regulation24Apro­ videsfor thesettingupandfunctioning of theService Boardsof theAuthority. 10 Inthepresentcasethepromotionsweremadeby theBoardof Personnel,underRegulation 10

(5)(b)andwereapprovedbythe GeneralManager,asprovidedbyRegulation24A

(7). 15 20 25 Although by s. 10A, whichwas introduced by s.4ofLaw25/ 63,powerisgiventotheAuthority todelegate toanyofits mem­ bers anyof thefunctionsoradministrativepowersconferredinit "δυνάμειτουπαρόντοςΝόμου"(onthebasisof thisLaw)I find that suchpower does notextenttoentrusting thepower of ap­ pointment or promotion toa body otherthanits ownmembers andinanyeventthepowertoappoint,promoteetc.was not con­ ferred ontherespondenteitherby Cap.302oranyof its amending laws, but by Law 61/70,^which is a separate anddistinct Law. Onthebasisof theabove IfindthatRegulations 10

(5)(b),10

(7)and24A are ultra vires theLaw. As aresult thesubjudice promotionswhichwereeffected onthebasisof theaboveRegulationshavetobeannulled.Inviewof myfindingIfinditunne­ cessary todealwiththeotherpointsraised. Intheresulttheserecoursessucceedandthesubjudicepromo­ tions areherebyannulled.Therewillbenoorderforcosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderasto costs. 30 1659