(1988)1988November4 (A. LOIZOU, P.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION GEORGMOSSAVVIDES, Applicant, THECYPRUSTELECOMMUNICATIONSAUTHORITY, Respondent. (CaseNo.915187). CyprusTelecommunicationsAuthority—Promotions—EffectedbyPersonnel CommitteeandconfirmedbyGeneralManager—TheCyprusTelecommunicationsAuthority (Personnel) GeneralRegulations, 1982,Regs. 10
(5)(e),7(a)and24A
(7)and
(8)—Ultraviressection43oftheTelecommunciationsServiceLaw,Cap.302—Authoritytoregulatebyrulestheexercise -* ofapowervestedinabodydoesnotimportpowertodelegatethepoweritselftoorganssubordinatetothatbody. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearinihejudgmentoftheCourt. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 10 Casesreferredto: PolycarpouandAnotherv.CYTA
(1988)3C.L.R. 1461; DemetriadesandOthersv. CYTA
(1988)3C.L.R.1034; IoannidesandAnotherv.CYTA
(1988)3C.L.R.1549; HadjiVassiliouandAnotherv. CYTA
(1988)3C.L.R.1655. 2030 15 3C.L.R. Savvidesv. CY.T.A Recourse. * / Recourse against therefusal and/or omission of therespondentstopromoteapplicanttothepostofInspectorof Office. AS. Angelidesy for theapplicant.. * - • A. Hadjioannou, forthe respondent. . . Cur. adv. vult. ' . '' A.LOIZOU P.read thefollowingjudgment. By thepresent recoursetheapplicantseeks: (a) The annulment of the refusal and or omission of therespondentAuthoritytopromotetheapplicant tothepostof InspectorofOffice oftheAuthority,and (b)Adeclarationthatthedecisiontakenonthe2ndSeptember 1987bytherespondent Authoritytoreject theobjectionof theapplicantagainsttheiractbywhichtheypromotedKyriakos HadjiKyriakou, Eleni Avraamidou, Christothea Kenta,Rena A.Kosma andAnastassia Kyriakidou tothe post.of Inspector of Office instead of himselfis nulland voidandofnolegaleffect.0 · Thefactsofthepresentcasearebriefly thefollowing: »« JTheapplicant has long been in the serviceof therespondent Authority.Theinterestedpartieswereselectedinthefirstplaceby thePersonnel Board and theirselection for promotionwas-confirmed by.the General Manager of the.Authority, (Appendices "A"and"B"),by-virtueofRegulations 10
(5)(b),
(7)(a)and24A
(7)and
(8)oftheCyprusTelecommunicationsAuthority(Personnel)GeneralRegulations 1982-,,published underNotification No. 220,inSupplementNo.3
(1)oftheOfficial GazetteoftheRepublicofthe26thJuly 1982. , ·r · .' . 2031 A. Loizou P. Savvides v. CY.T.A.
(1988)Theground relied upon onbehalf of theapplicant is that the saidorgansoftheAuthoritythateffected thepromotionsinquestion had nocompetence in thematter inasmuch astherelevant Regulationsbyvirtueofwhichtheyacted areultravirestheenablingSection 43of theTelecommunications ServiceLaw, Cap. 5 302, as amended by Laws No. C. 20/60, 34/62,25/63,54/77, 61/70,andthepowersinthatrespectarevestedundertherelevant lawtotheAuthority. Thispointcameupforconsideration infourothercasesPolycarpou andanotherv. CYTA.
(1988)3C.L.R. 1461;Demetriades and Othersv. CYTA.
(1988)3C.L.R. 1034;loannides and anotherv.CYTA.
(1988)3C.L.R. 1549;andHadjiVassiliou and Another v. C.Y.T.A.
(1988)3 C.L.R. 1655. In all thesejudgments,itwasheldthattheseRegulationsareultravires theenablingLaw. 10 InthecaseofPolycarpou(supra)Pikis,J.,hadthistosay: "Did s.43of Cap.302,as amended by s.3of Law61/70, conferpowertodelegatebyregulationsthecompetencevested inCYTAtomakeappointmentsandpromotionsofpersonnel? 20 Neithers.43noranyprovisionofCap.302doesconfer sucha powerexplicitlyorimplicitly.Powertodelegateauthoritytoa bodyother than that nominated by lawmust befound inthe provisionsofthelawitself.Authoritytoregulatebyrulesthe exercise of power vested in a given body does not import powertodelegateauthoritytosubordinateorgansofthatbody. Therefore, the respondents acting with the approval of the CouncilofMinistersexceededtheirauthorityinmakingprovisionfortheexerciseofthepowertoappointandpromotebya bodyotherthantheBoardoftherespondents.Iam,therefore, 30 driven totheconclusion thatReg. 10
(5)and24areultravires thelawandthepromotionshereunderreview,madeunderthe provisionsofthesubjectRegulations,mustlikewisebeinvalidated asillegal andanimproperexerciseofthepowervested intherespondents." 35 2032 3 C.L.R. 5 Savvides v. CY.T.A. A. Loizou P. Ihavenoreason todepartfromthejudicial precedent setupby mybrethren.Iaccordingly find thatthesaidRegulations byvirtue of which thePersonnel Board and theGeneral Manager acted in thepresentcase, areultravires theLaw andtherefore thesubjudicedecision isnulland voidandof nolegal effect and adeclaration ismadetothateffect, accordingly. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. 10 Subjudice decisonannulled. No orderas tocosts. 2033