clr/1988/1988_3_1753.pdf

(1988)Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to promote theinterested parties totherankof Sergeant intheFire Servicein preference andinstead of theapplicants. A. Ladas, for theapplicants. 5 A. Vassiliades, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. A. LOIZOU P. read the following judgment. By the present recourse which was taken over by meon the 19th March, 1988, theapplicants seek adeclaration of the Court that thedecision of 10 the respondents which was published in the Police Weekly Orders (Part II, No. 195) of the 7th April 1976,topromote to the rank of Sergeant in the Police Fire Service as from the 1st May 1979, the eleven interested parties, namely P. Karatjias, K. Panayides, G. Pisharas, S. Sophocleous, A. Theodorou, N.Andre- 15 ou, Chr. Schizas, N. Georghiou, K. Pamboris, G. Papageorghiou and A. G. Nicolaou, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The background tothepresentrecourseisbriefly as follows: The Supreme Court by means of its judgment in recourses 20 Nos. 245/81 and 246/81, reported as Tsangarides v. The Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1525 annulled the promotions to therank ofSergeantof eleven personswhoaretheinterestedpartiesinthe present proceedings because theChiefofPoliceineffecting such promotions "took into account information leading him to the 25 conclusion that thepersonal reputation of theapplicantshad been diminished because of their behaviour during the abortive coup d'etat of the 15th July 1974; and itisquite clear that this factor wasan essentialand decisive reason for deciding not topromote theapplicants."The Court concluded that "theapplicantswereex- 30 eludedfromconsideration forpurposesofpromotion inamanner 1754 3 C.L.R. Kyprianou & Another v. Republic A Loizou P. contrary totherules of naturaljustice and,consequently, thesub'· judice promotions of theinterested parties -instead of theappli­ f cants :.have tobe annulled." . <_• 5 10 15 -As aresult of a.subsequent re-examination,theChief of Police promoted thepresent interested parties, wiuVthe approval of the Minister of Interior, under Section 13 of the Police Law; Cap. 285 (as amended by the Police (Amendment) Law, 1966, Law No. 29 of 1966) retrospectively as from 1st May, 1979.' Before dealing with thearguments as put forward by theapplicants,Ihave todispose of first thepreliminary objection put for­ ward by therespondents totheeffect thattheapplicants lacked the necessary legitimate interest tochallenge thepromotionsof thein­ terested parties, since, theapplicants,had been subsequendy pro­ moted tothesame post themselves, had therefore lost their legitimateinterest andcouldonly challenge thedecision topromotethe interested parties retrospectively. Iconsider, however, thatthemerefact of thepromotionof the r interested parties instead of the applicants is sufficient tocreate for themthenecessary legitimate interest. 20 On behalf of the applicants it was submitted thatthey are strik­ ingly better to the interested parties and more so in view of the fact that they had been strongly recommended for promotion by theChief FireOfficer and alsorecommended for immediatepro­ motion by theSelection Board. 25 Itwas further contended thattheapplicants were wrongly not promoted for reasons of loyalty, since in the Evaluation Report (Δελτίον Αξιολογήσεως) both applicants ranked better tothein­ terested parties. 30 From a perusal of the sub judice decision it does not appear anywhere therein thatthe Chief of Police took intoconsideration any material concerningeithertheir loyalty ortheirpersonal repu­ tation. In particular it is stated in his letter dated 27th February 1755 A. Loizou P. Kyprianou & Another v. Republic

(1988)1986, to theMinister of Interior,requesting his approval for the promotionsthat: "... having consulted the recommendations of the Chief Fire Officer and thesuggestions of the PromotionsBoard and studied thepersonal files concerning thematters related tothe 5 promotions, that is merit, qualifications, seniority, I consi­ dered thefollowing as the most suitable of all and Ihave de­ cided by virtue of thediscretion vested in meby section 13

(2)of thePolice Law to promotethem to therank of Sergeant as from the 1st May, 1979,..." 10 In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the applicants to substantiate such allegation of their, this ground must necessarily fail. As far as the question of striking superiority is concerned, none has been established and thefact thattheapplicants may be 15 slightly better rated in the Evaluation Report ( Δ ε λ τ ί ο Αξιολογήσεως), even if it could render them slightly better, nonetheless does notmake themstrikingly superior. Forthereasons stated above, Ifind thatthesubjudice decision was rightly andproperly reached and inaccordance with theprovisions of the Law and after a proper exercise of discretion. The recourse fails and is hereby dismissed, with noorder as to costs. Recoursedismissed. No orderas to costs. 1756 20