(1988)1988 November 18 {MALACHTOS,DEMETRIADES,STYUANIDES,PIKIS,PAPADOPOULOS. HADJITSANGARIS, CHRYSOSTOMIS, JJ.] CYPRUSTOURISMORGANIZATION, Appellant-Respondent. v. STELIOSprrsnxiDES, Respondent-Applicant. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo.838). PublicCorporations—Promotions—The Cyprus TourismOrganization—The CyprusTourismOrganization Law,1969(Law 54/69), asamended by Law 48/78, section 5
(6)—Delegation of power to promote to sub committeeconsistingof5 membersoftheBoardandtheDirector-General of the Organization—Whether theDirector-General entitledto vote— 5 Questiondeterminedinthe affirmative. Collectiveorgans—Quorum—Absence ofexpressprovision—Thereisa quo rum,whenthememberspresentaremorethan those absent—Rule that quorumconsistsofhalfthemembersofanorganplusonedisapproved. Wordsandphrases:"Participates" (συμμετέχει)insection5
(6)oftheCyprus 10 TourismOrganizationLaw, 1969 (Law54/69).asamendedbyLaw48/78. PublicCorporations—Promotions—CyprusTourismOrganization—Schemes ofservice—Interpretationandapplicationof—Judicialcontrol·—Principles applicable. Reasoning ofanadministrative act—Whatisduereasoning—Depends upon 15 thenatureofthedecision—Reasoningmaybesupplementedfrom themate rialinthefUebefore theadministration. TheAdministrativeBoardoftherespondentOrganizationdelegated, in 2154 3 CX.R. C.T.O. v. Pitsillides virtueofsection 5
(6)*ofLaw 54^59,asamendedibyiLaw 48/78,itspower to promote[personneltoasub-committee,-consisting of 5of-its members andtheDirector-GeneraloftheOrganization. e By.meansof the subjudicedecisiontheinterested].partieswerepromotedtothejpost of SeniorTouristOfficer. Thisdecision wasannulled by die judgmentappealed from onthefollowing grounds,i.e.: '(a)TheDirector-Generalwasnotentitledtovote-asheinfacthaddone. ΙΟ (b)There wasnoquorumiinthesiib-commiueewhen ittookthedeci sion,becauseonly 3outof its five voting members.werepresent,whereas in accordancewith thegeneral principles οΓadministrative law thereisa quorum,when half themembers of·theorganjplus onearepresent.There fore,inthiscasethequorumconsistsof4 outof the 5.voting members. Inihehghtof theabove principles the1trialCourtdid notproceedtoad judicateothergrounds,which1had'beenraised1by the applicant 15 The Cyprus Tourism Organization"appealed. The respondent crossappealed, inviting thustheCourt toadjudicate theunresolved issues.The respondent wasoneof thecanidatesforpromotion,'but he wasfinallyex cluded becausehelackedoneof the requiredundertherelevantschemeof servicequalifications. Held,allowing (heappealanddismissing theCross-appeal: 25 30
(1)The wordingof section5
(6)is clear. Section 5
(5)expressly pro vides thattheDirector-General'"takespartwithout avote (Μετέχει άνευ ψήφου)" in die meetingsof.the Board,whereas section5
(6)' provides thathe"participates"(Συμμετέχει)ιin thesub-committee. Thisexpressionimports activefull participation.
(2)Thecorrectprinciple ofadministrative law isthat,1intheabsenceof anexpressprovision,quorumconsistsofanabsolutemajority ofthe members of acollectiveorgan, i.e. there isaquorum when those presentaremorethanthoseabsent Itfollows thatif thenumberof members iseven,quorum ishalf themembers plus one,but when thenumberof members isodd,quorumconsistsof thenexthigher numbertohalf the members of theorgan. *Sub-section5
(6)reads asfollows:TheAdministrative Boardmay delegate,partofits competenciestoCommitteesof itsmembers in which theDirector-General... may participate". 2155 C.T.O. v. Pitsillides
(1988)
(3)ThisCourtdoesnotinterfere withthe applicationand interpretation of aschemeof serviceby theappointingorgan,if suchapplication andinterpretation werereasonably opentoit.Inthiscasetherele vantprovisionof theschemewas plain.Respondent'squalifications werebefore theorgan.Thepresumptionof regularity hasnotbeen 5 displaced.Thedecision toexcludetheapplicantfor "lackof there quired qualification" conveyedthereasonwhy itwas taken. Theap plicant, therefore,hasnolegitimateinteresttochallengethesubjudicedecision. Appealallowed. Cross-appeal ^ dismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Maratheftisv. TheRepublic
(1965)3C.L.R. 576; TheodoridesandOthersv.Ploussiou
(1976)3C.L.R. 319; HjiGeorghiou v.C.T.O.
(1986)3C.L.R.1110; 15 HadjiDemetriou v.C.T.O.
(1986)3CL.R. 1956; C.T.O. v.HadjiDemetriou
(1987)3C.L.R. 780; Christodoulides v.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 1911; Dr.Hascardv.Dr.Somang,E.R. 89,K.B. p.380; TheKingv.Devonshire, 1ΒandC609,E.R. 107,K.B.p.224; Republicv. Maratheftis
(1986)3C.L.R. 1407; MytidesandAnotherv.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1096; TsountasandAnotherv.Republic
(1985)3CLA. 784; Decisions 1813/1957 and2365/1968 ofGreekCouncilofState. 2156 20 3 C.L.R. Appeal. ' 5 C.T.O. v. Pitsillides . .. '" - Appealagainstthejudgmentof thePresident of theSupreme Court of Cyprus'(A. Loizou, P.) given on the 14th July, 1988 (RevisionalJurisdiction CaseNo.616/84)*whereby thepromotionoftheinterestedpany tothepost of SeniorTourist Officer wasannulled. A.Dikigoropoulosyfortheappellant. A. S.Angelides, for therespondent. "Cur. adv. vw/r. 0 MALACHTOS J.:TheJudgment of theCourt will bedeliveredbyMr.JusticeStylianides. STYLIANIDESJ.:Theappellant-CyprusTourismOrganization -which wastherespondent in Recourse No.616/84under Article 146oftheConstitution,hasappealed againstthefirst instanceJudgment bymeansofwhichtherewasannulledthepromotiontothepostofSeniorTouristOfficer ofAntonisCharalambides and Petros Vanezis. The recourse was made by Stelios. Pitsillides,asapplicant andheis nowtherespondent in thisappeal. " ^ InannullingthesaidpromotionsthelearnedtrialJudgestated thefollowing: "ItwasarguedonbehalfoftheapplicantthattheactiveparticipationoftheDirector-GeneraloftherespondentOrganiza-tionintheSelectionCommitteewaswrongandillegalinthat inaccordancewithsection5
(5)and
(6)oftheLaw,asamendedbysection 2ofLawNo.48of 1978,theDirector-General hasnovotingpowerswhenparticipatinginthemeetingsofthe SelectionCommitteebutisonlytheretoassist. * Reported in
(1988)3-CL'M.1429. · r 2157 StylianidesJ. C.T.O.v.Pitsillides
(1988)FurthermoreitwascontendedthattheSelectionCommittee when considering the matter at hand and when reaching the subjudicedecision wasimproperly constituted asnoproper quorumcouldbeformed bytheparticipation ofonlythreeof itsfivemembersatitsdeliberations.Accordingtotheapplicant 5 theparticipation of four members wasnecessary inorder to form aquorumandthepresenceof theDirector-General as.a fourth person,notbeingavotingmembercouldnotform the necessaryquorum. I consider that the active participation of the Director- JQ General byvoting wascontrary to theexpress provisionsof theLaw.Fromaperusaloftheprovisionsof section5ofthe Law,itisclearthattheDirector-Generalisnotamemberofthe Administrative Board butinaccordance with sub-section
(5)thereof,heparticipatesatthemeetingsoftheBoardwithouta ,c vote. Sub-section
(6)thereof, as amended by Law No. 48 of 1978,providesinteraliaasfollows: TheAdministrativeBoardmaydelegatepartofitscompetenciestoCommitteesofitsmembersinwhichtheDirec- 20 tor-General...mayparticipate.' Had the intention of thelegislator been for the DirectorGeneraltohavevotingpowerwhenparticipatinginanysubcommittee,therewouldhaveeitherbeenanexpressprovision tothateffect, oritwouldhaveprovided for the settingupof 25 suchcommittees made upof membersof the Board and including the Director-General. Inthis instance, however, the Law merely allows theparticipation ofthe Director-General whocancertainlynotassumeanymorepowersthanheisalreadygivenexpressly bytheLawitselfandinparticular sec- ™ tions5
(5)and6,thereof. Consequently, not havinganyvotingpower,theDirectorGeneralwasnotentitledtojoininforming thenecessaryquo2158 3C.L.R. * C.T.O.v.Pitsillides StylianidesJ. rum;asthepersonsforming aquorumaresinequanontothe proceedings. 5 10 15 Inthepresentinstancetherefore thesubjudicedecisionwas ' reachedbyonlythreeoutofthefivemembersoftheSelection Committeewhodidnotconstituteaquorumasintheabsence of specificprovisionintherelevantLaw,thegeneralruleappliesi.e.thatsuchquorumishalf themembersof thecollectiveorgan,plusoneandinthiscasesuchmumbermustneces-sarilybefour. (SeeConclusionsoftheCase'LawoftheGreek CouncilofState 1929-1959,alsoMaratheftisv.TheRepublic
(1965)3C.L.R.576at581-582.) I find therefore that'the subjudice decision*must beannulled as contrary to law and as having been reached bya wronglyconstitutedorgan.Inviewofthis,Ineednotproceed toexaminethe'caseonitsmeritssoasnottoprejudge theissue; -*''.. • <-'·'; · *<•» · J t - . * . ' Forthereasonsstatedabove,thisrecoursesucceedsandthe subjudice decisionisherebyannulled."Theappellant-CyprusTourismOrganization -'wassetupfor 20 the first time by the Cyprus Tourism Organization Law, 1969 (LawNo.54/69),after thePublicServiceCommissionenvisaged byArticle 124of the Constitution hadceased toexist and after therehadbeencreatedbyLaw33/67aPublicServiceCommission'which wasnot vested with any powersover personnelof 25 publiccorporations,suchastheappellant.Itwas,consequently, justifiable,bothbythelawofnecessityandbycommon sense,to empowertheBoardoftheappellantto"appoint"itsemployeesby section 5
(2)(e)ofLaw 54/69."Appointment" in provisions of thisnatureincludesthenotionof "promotion"-(seeD. Theodo3Q ridesandOthersv.S.Ploussiou
(1976)3C.L.R.319; HjiGeorghiouv. C.T.O.
(1986)3C.L.R.1110), •'By means'of sub-section
(6)of section 5 of Law 54/69,as amendedbyLaw48/78,theBoardoftheappellantwasempow-. 2159 Stylianides J. C.T.O.v. Pitsillides
(1988)ered todelegate partof itspowers toCommitteescomposedof its members, in which theDirector-Generalor any otherofficer of theOrganization mayparticipate. Underthis sub-section aSelection Committeewas set upby theBoardof theappellanton8thJuly, 1983,which was enlarged 5 by the addition of one member of theBoard by Decision dated 29thJuly, 1983 - (seeAppendices "Θ1" and"Θ2"). Thepower todecide finally for theappointment, promotion, transfer of thepersonnelof theOrganization was delegated tothis Selection Committee. 10 TheCommitteewas composed of five members of theBoard andof theDirector-General. Thesubjudice decision was unanimously taken by fourmem bers of theCommittee,whowerepresentthroughthewholepro cess- threemembersof theBoardandtheDirector-General. 15 Thegroundof appeal,as setoutintheNotice,is thattheJudg ment as to the meaning andeffect of sections 5
(5)and 5
(6)of Law 54/69asamendedis wrong. Counselfor theappellant submitted thatthecompositionofthe Selection Committeewas notdefective, duetotheparticipationas a full member of the Director-General,and that quorum for a Comrnkteeundersub-section
(6)is themajority of themembers of the Committee, i.e., more than half thereof and that sub section
(7)is notapplicable inthiscase. 20 InHJiGeorghiou v. C.T.O.
(1986)3C.L.R. 1110, thelegality 25 of a decision of the same sub-committee was challenged; the Courtsaidthatthesub-committeewas dulyconstituted. InHadjiDemetriou v. C.T.O.
(1986)3 C.L.R. 1956,H.H. JudgePudsdealtmoreelaborately with thesubject andatp. 1962 hadthistosay: 2160 30 . 3C.L.R. C.T.O.v.Pitsillides StylianidesJ. "The submission is.founded on the provisions of s.5
(5)thatconfines thepoweroftheDirector-General toattendance beforetheBoardwithoutarighttovote.Byanalogy,thepoweroftheDirectortotakepartinthedeliberationsofanybody 5 towhichpowersoftheBoardaredelegatedshouldlikewisebe construed as limited to attendance and expression ofviews. Thesubmissionrunscountertotheplainprovisionsofs. 5
(6). ·; ofthelaw(asamendedbyLaw48/78)thatexpresslyempow• erstheBoardtodelegatepowers-vested in it by thelawtoa ,Q subcommitteecomposedofmembersoftheBoardaswellas theDirector-General.Hencewecannotreadthelimitationsuggestedbyapplicantasimplicitinthelawinviewofclearprovisionstothecontrary.Consequently,thesubmissionthatthe Selection Committee (towhichpowertomakeappointments andpromotionswasdelegatedbyadecisionoftheBoarddated8thJuly, 1983)wasill-constitutedcannotbeupheld." 20 25 30 InC.T.O. v.HadjiDemetriou
(1987)3C.L.R.780-theRevisionalAppealfromtheaboveJudgment-theFullBenchreferred tosection5
(6)ofLaw54/69,whichenabledtheappellanttodelegatesomeofitspowerstoCommitteesconsistingofitsmembers andoftheDirector-General orotherofficer oftheappellant,and observedthefollowing atp.789: "Lastly, in the light of all the foregoing, wefindnothing. unconstitutionalinthedelegationoftherelevantpowersofthe Boardof theappellant totheSelection Committee which effected the subjudice promotion or in the inclusion insuch Committee of the Director-General of the appellant. Onthe • contrary,theparticipation insuchCommitteeoftheDirectorGeneraloftheappellant,inourview,resultsinthedemocratizationoftheprocessoftheexerciseoftherelevantpowersregardingappointments andpromotions,in thesensethatthere .participateinsuchprocessnotonlymembersof theBoardof theappellantbutalsoitshighestexecutive officer." Sub-section
(5)ofsection5 reads: 2161 Stylianides J. C.T.O. v. Pitsillides
(1988)"5.
(5)Των συνεδριάσεων του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου μετέχει,άνευψήφου,οΓενικόςΔιευθυντής." Sub-section
(6), as substituted by section 2 of Law 48 of 1978, reads: "
(6)ToΔιοικητικόνΣυμβούλωνδύναται να μεταβιβά- 5 ζη μέροςτων αρμοδιοτήτωντουεις Επιτροπάς εκ μελών αυτού εις ταοποίας δύναται νασυμμετέχηκαιο Γενικός ΔιευθυντήςήέτεροςλειτουργόςτουΟργανισμού.Επίσης το ΔιοικητικόνΣυμβούλιονδύναταινασυνιστάγνωμοδο τικός Επίτροποςεξ ατόμων εκπροσωπούντωνοργανι- ίο σμούς σχέσιν έχονταςμε τηντουριστικήν βιομηχανίαν ή εξειδικώνπροσώπων." Thereisagreatdifference between theroleattributedtothe Di rector-General by sub-section
(5)fromthatgiven tohiminsub section
(6). Sub-section
(5)provides that he "μετέχει άνευ 15 ψήφου" (takespartwithoutvote).Insub-section
(6)thelegislator used theword "συμμετέχει" without, however, any limitation; the words "άνευ ψήφου", found in sub-section
(5),werepur posely notincluded in subsection
(6). "Συμμετέχει"is aplain Greek word,which meanstaking active part, participating -(see 20 Αντιλεξικόν ή Ονομαστικόν της Νεοελληνικής Γλώσσης, θεολόγουΒοσταντζόγλου, 1986, σελ.561).Thesamemeaning of activefull participationimportstheEnglish word"participate". In view of the foregoing, thecomposition of the Selection Committeewas notdefective by theactive participation,including 25 votingof theDirector-Generalof theOrganization.TheDirectorGeneralwas afull memberof theSelection Committeewith vot ing power. Itiswellsettledthatacollective Body isdulycomposedand it takesvaliddecisions atameetingonly whenthere isaquorum. "Quorum"is anumberof membersof an administrative body, whosepresenceis necessary for ttieaetsof thebody tobevalid. 2162 30 3 C.L.R. C.T.O.v. Pitsillides Stylianides J. Section 35 of the Interpretation Law, Cap. 1, provides that saveas is otherwise expressly provided by any Law, whenever any actorthingisrequiredtobedoneby morethantwopersons, amajority of themmaydoit. •5 IntheJurisprudenceof theGreekCouncilof State 1929-1959, at*p. 109 it is stated thatthegeneral rule tothequestion of quo rumof acollective organ,'intheabsenceof specific provision, is thepresenceof themajority of themembers: Ί 10 • • · . "... υφίσταται απαρτία εν περιπτώσει παρουσίας της πλειοψηφίαςτουσυνόλουτωνμελών,..." » Andafter thisstatementitiswritten: "...ήτοι:τουημίσεωςπλέονενόςτούτων:..." • ("Half itsmembers plusone.") 15 2 0 2 5 30 • This statementwas adoptedinMikisMaratheftis andtheRepublicthrough thePublicService Commission
(1965)3C.L.R. 576. Themembers of theCommission were ten andit was held thattheparticipationoffive membersdidnotconstituteaquorum andthatall decisions of theCommission should be takenby-an absolute majority of itsmembers,i.e.six. '* > InChristodoulides v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1911 -case citedby counsel for therespondent- (see first instanceJudgment
(1984)3C.L.R. 1340)thelegalprinciples pertaining totheques tionof quorum were notin issue, because by section 10
(3)of Law 10/69 it is provided expressly thatthevalidity of anydeci sion of theCommission is notaffected if thereexistsa vacancy onit- asitwas the position atthe materialtimeduetothe resigna tionof oneof its members -provided that the total numberof membersof theCommission doesnotbecomelessthan three. We lookedupthecases citedinthefoot-noteof p. 109insupportof thelastpartof thestatementthatmajority is half plusone, 2163 StyHaηides J. C.T.O. v. Pitsillides
(1988)and we regret to say thatnoneof thoseDecisions of theCouncil of State supports such statement. In Case No.2365/1968, Decisions of the Greek Council of State, 1968 Γ , at p. 2815, the Greek Council of State,in inter preting andapplying aprovision inaRoyal Decreethataquorum 5 of the Service Council exists when the number of the members present is equal to half plus one,held that quorum exists when the members present are morethanthose absent according tothe general principle, that, when the number of the members of a Council is undertheLaw even, toconstitutequorumthepresence JQ of half plus one member is required, but when the Council is composed undertheLaw of odd numberof members for quorum is sufficient if the members present are more thanthose absent (see, also, Case No. 1813/1977). In Spiliotopoulos Έγχειρίδιον ΔιοικητικούΔικαίου" (Man- 15 ual of Administrative Law), 2nd Edition,1982, at p. 130 we read that when a Body is composed of more than three persons quo rum is often fixed by relevant provision". Intheabsence of specif ic provision, there is a quorum when the members present are more thanthose absent, i.e.,themajority of themembers. ~o In Δαγτόγλου,"GeneralAdministrative Law" A' 1977, atp. 216 it is stated that a collective organ has only competence to function when a fixed minimum number of its members is present.This principle is, in general, thehigher numberimmedi ately after half of itsmembers: «c "Κατά την αρχήαυτήτο συλλογικό όργανοτότε μόνο έχει ικανότητα λειτουργίας, όταν ένας ορισμένος ελάχιστος αριθμός των μελώντουείναιπαρών. Ο αριθμός αυτός είναικατά κανόνα ο αμέσωςμεγαλύτερος ακέραιος του ημίσεοςτων μελών (π.χ.8επί 14ή 15)." 3 0 . And atp. 217 we read: "Η δεύτερη ομάδα ζητημάτωναναφέρεται στην αρχή 2164 ν 3 C.L.R. 5 C.T.O. v. Pitsillides Stytianides J. τηςπλειοψηφίας,κατάτηνοποίαηαπόφασητουσυλλογι κούοργάνουπροϋποθέτειοχι ομοφωνία (πόυ'θαεσημαινετην εξάρτησητου οργάνουαπότην συναίνεση έστωκαι ενός μέλους), αλλά την συμφωνία των περισσοτέρων μελών.Αυτό σημαίνειτηνσυμφωνίατουαμέσως μεγαλυ' τέρουακεραίουαριθμούτουημίσεοςτωνπαρόντων(κατά κανόνα)μελών (π.χ."5.επί8ή9παρόντων).Καιεδώ, εκτός απότηναπλήήαπόλυτηπλειοψηφία (οιόροιείναισυνώ νυμοι), υπάρχει και η ηυξημένη πλειοψηφία,που όμως απαιτείται μόνονότανπροβλέπεται ρητώςαπότοννόμο." * · 'ί In Halsbury's Lawsof England,4th Edition,volume 9,para ι : graph 1297reads: *.- 15 2fl "1297. Presenceof quorumnecessary. Theactsof a corpo ration,otherthanatradingcorporation,arethoseof themajor part of the corporators, corporately assembled. In other words,intheabsence of special customorof special provision in theconstitution,themajor part mustbepresent atthe meet ing, andof that rnajor part theremust be amajority in favour of theactorresolution contemplated.Where, therefore,acorporation"consists of thirteen members, there ought tobe-'at least sevenpresent toform avalidmeeting,andtheactof the Q majority of these seven or of a greater number will bindthe corporation."' ·' ' (See, also, Dr.'Hascard v. Dr. Somany, E.R. 89, K.B., p. ~<- 380;'The Kingv.Devonshire, 1Β & C609, E.R. 107, K.B., p. ° 224.) ' . - - •· - " 3Q Fromall theafore quotedauthoritiesquorumintheabsenceof expressprovision means simple or absolute majority. Simple'or absolute majority exists when themajor partof themembers is present,i.e. half of the members plus one when thenumberof the members is even and more than half the members when a body iscomposedofoddnumberof members - (five constitutes a quorumwhenthemembers areeithereightornine). 2165 ο StylianidesJ. C.T.O.v.Pitsillides
(1988)Sub-section
(7)of section 5isnotrelated anddoesnotapply tothecommitteessetupundersub-section
(6)astheLawwasat thematerialtime,beforeitsamendmentbyLaw16/85. -Four members of the Selection Committee were present. Therefore,therewasaquorum.EveniftheCommitteewerecom- 5 . posedoffivemembers,thepresenceofthreeofthemwouldconstituteaquorum. The respondent, by cross-appeal, invited the Court todeterminethequestionswhichwerenotresolvedbythetrialJudge,on thebasisofRepublicv.MaratheftisandAnother
(1986)3C.L.R. 10 1407,andthenatureof arevisionalappeal,suchasthepresent one,in which this Courthastodeal with thecase before it asa whole. 'Thefacts sofarasrelevanttotheunresolvedissuesareasfollows: .ThereweretwovacanciesofSeniorTouristOfficer. Thisisa first entry andpromotion post.The schemeof service wasduly approvedbytheCouncilofMinistersbyDecision20.278on16th April,
- Thepostwasadvertised inthelocalpress.Thirty-five candi- 20 dates,includingtenmembersofthestaffoftheappellantOrganizationapplied.Eighteencandidateswereinvitedforinterview,includingthecandidatesmembersofthestaff,thoughsomeofthem mightnotpossesstheprescribequalifications. Itwasmadeclear tothemthatifanyonedidnotsatisfy fully theschemeofservice, 25 he would notbeappointed,notwithstanding hisinterview -(see Minutesof29thAugust,1983). Qualification (b)undertheschemeofserviceis:Universitydegreeortitleorequivalentqualification inappropriatesubject,e.g. Economics,Marketing,Tourism,HotelandCateringAdministra- 30 tiori,etc.By thenote-proviso-theTourist Officers, 1stClass, intheserviceof theOrganization on thedateof theapprovalof 2166 15 3 C.L.R. C.T.O.v.Pitsillides Stylianides J. this schemecouldbeconsideredcandidateseven if theydid not possessions qualification, provided that they possess all other qualifications. • Theapplicant-respondent wasfirst-appointedtothe permanent postof Inspectoron 2ndApril, 1971.Hewas secondedas from thesamedatetothepost of SeniorInspector,hewas confirmed on 1st July,
- He was promoted to thepermanentpost of Tourist Officer, 1st Class, on 1st August, 1982; The post of "Tourist Officer, 1st Class", was renamed to "Tourist Officer". IQ Onthedateoftheapproval of theschemeof service-16thApril, 1981 -hewas theholder.of thepostof SeniorInspectorand not TouristOfficer, 1stClass.Thisisobviousfrom amere'glancein thepersonalfileof theapplicant,which was before the Commit teeandisExhibit 1 before us. 5 •ι,. . - " 15 20 After theinterviewsof 29thand31st August, 1983,the Selec tion Committee,invited for a second-interview onlyfivecandi dateswhosatisfied theapproved schemeof service-,(see Minutes of 30thSeptember, 1983,Appendix "D").Theapplicantwasnot includedandwas notconsideredany further. Itwas submittedby counselfor theappellantthattheapplicant hasnolegitimateinteresttopursuethisrecourse,ashe lackedthe requiredqualification. , ItwascontendedbycounselfortheapplicantthattheSelection Committeefailedinitsduty,tointerprettheschemeof service, to 25 Ν carryoutadueinquiry astothequalifications of the.applicantand givereasonsforexcluding the applicant. AnappointingAuthority hasadutytoconstruetheschemeof service,ascertainthequalifications ofeachcandidatesasafactual situationandfinallytoapplytheschemeof serviceinthisfactual 30 -situation anddecidewhetheracandidateis underthescheme of service eligible for promotion.;It has tocarry outa.dueinquiry andtheoutcome of such inquiry should appearinthereasoning andbereflected intheMinutesof themeetingof theappointing 2167 StylianidesJ. C.T.O.v.Pitsillides
(1988)Body-(MytidesandAnotherv.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R.1096; TsountasandAnotherv.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 784). Itisoutsidethelimitsof thejurisdictionofthisCourttoconstruetheschemeofserviceandtostatewhetherthequalification heldsufficed. 5 Therequiredqualifications Underparagraph(b)ofthescheme of serviceisclear.Thepersonalfileoftheapplicant wasbefore theSelectionCommittee. Invirtueofthepresumption ofregularity,whichwasnotdisplaced,theCommitteecarriedoutinquiry andreached thedecisionthattheapplicantlackedtherequired qualification. TheMinutesof the meetingsof 29th August, 1983and30th September, 1983,convey, albeit shortly, thereasons.Thequestionof whatisduereasoningisaquestion ofdegreedepending uponthenatureof thedecisionconcerned.Furthermore,thereasoningmaybesupplementedbythematerialbefore theAdministrativeAuthority. Thedecisiontoexcludetheapplicantforlackofthisqualification,conveythereasonwhyitwastaken,which,furthermore, is supplementedbythematerialinthe file. Wefindnomeritintheallegationthat,oncetheapplicantwas invitedtoaninterview,asamatterof properadministration,the appellantshouldhaveconsideredhimforpromotionuptothe finalstageof theprocess,irrespectiveof whetherhepossessedor notthequalificationsprescribedbytheschemeofservice. Itiswellsettled thatthelackoftherequired qualification deprivesacandidatefrom legitimateinterest underparagraph 2of Article146oftheConstitution,whichisaconditionprecedentof theannulmentjurisdictionofanAdministrativeCourt 2168 ? 2 3 C.L.R. C.T.O.v. Pitsillides Stylianides J. In view of theforegoing, the appeal is allowed. The recourse is dismissed, the subjudice decision isconfirmed under Article 146.4(a) of the Constitution, but in all the circumstances of the case,with somehesitation, wemake noorder astocosts. 5 Appeal allowed. No orderas tocosts. 2169