3 C.L.R. 1988January 20 [LORIS, J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION SOTERIS RODOTHEOU, Applicant, v. THE PORTS AUTHORITY OFCYPRUS, Respondent. (CaseNo. 149/84). r Public Corporations—Ports Authority of Cyprus—Setting upofa Committee, which would submitproposals inrespect ofthepersons tobepromoted— Inreaching subjudice decision theBoard didnotabdicateits task, but,on thecontrary,conductedaninquiryofitsown,takingintoconsiderationthe proposalsoftheCommitteeandallothermaterialbeforeit—Subjudice decisionreachedbyacompetentorganafterdueinquiry. Public Corporations—Ports Authority of Cyprus—Promotions—Scheme of service—Complaintthatinterestedparty hadnotcompleted6years'aggregateserviceinposts ofPortsOfficer3rd,2ndand1stGrade,asrequiredby 10 thescheme inquestion—Factualbasisofcomplaintnotsubstantiated. Reasoning ofanadministrative act—Itmaybefound either in thedecision itselforintherelevantofficialrecords. The facts of thiscasearesufficiently indicated in thehereinabove headnote. 15 Recoursedismissed. No orderasto costs. 33 Rodotheou v. Ports Authority
(1988)Casesreferredto: Hadjiloannou v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1041; HadjiSawav.Republic
(1972)3OLA.
- Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondents topromote •5 theinterestedpartiestothepostofSeniorPortsOfficer inpreferenceandinsteadoftheapplicant. Chr. Vakisy for theapplicant. N.PapaefstathiouforT.Papadopoulos,fortherespondent. L. Papaphilippou,forinterestedpartyNo.
- Cur. adv. vult. LORIS J. read the followingjudgment. The applicant inthe present recourse was initially impugning thepromotion of the fourinterestedpartiestothepostofSeniorPortsOfficer withthe respondent Authority asfrom 1.10.83,inpreference to,and in- 15 steadoftheapplicant. After thefilingofthewrittenaddressesonbehalfofalltheinterested parties, the applicant withdrew his recourse - on 18.1.1986 -against interested parties 1,2 and4 andproceeded onlyagainstInterestedPartyNo.3namelyAndreasPatallos. 20 Thecomplaintsoftheapplicantaseliminatedbyhiswrittenaddressarethefollowing: 1.Interestedparty No.3didnotqualify forpromotion as, allegedly,hewaspromoted tothepostofPortsOfficer 3rdgrade as late asthe 1.4.1979and thushehad not six years aggregate 25 serviceinthepostsofPortsOfficer 1st,2ndand3rdgradeasen34 3 C.L.R. Rodotheou v. Ports Authority Loris J. visaged by the Scheme of Service (vide Note 2(b)(ii) of the SchemeofServicesetoutinAppendix'B*attachedtotheopposition). 2.Theapplicant isallegedly strikingly superior toInterested 5 party No.
- The sub-judice decision of therespondent Authority was reachedatwithoutdueinquiryandlacksduereasoning. AsregardscomplaintunderNo. 1 above,itmustbenotedthat theschemeofServicesetoutinAppendix'B'attachedtotheop10 positionrequires,forpromotiontothepostofSeniorPortsOfficer (which is apromotion post),inter alia, six years aggregate service in the posts of Ports Officer 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade. (Vide:Note2(b)(ii)oftheSchemeofService). Theissueraisedinthisconnectionrevolvesonthedateofap15 pointment of interested party No.3tothepostof Ports Officer : rd grade; if he waspromoted to the post of Ports Officer 3rd gradeon 1.4.79,as alleged bythe applicant, (having beenpromoted tothepostsof: PortsOfficer 2nd gradein 1979andPorts Officer 1stgradeon1.1.83)thendefinitely theaggregateservice 20 of interested party No.3in theaforesaid threepostsislessthan the6yearsrequiredbytheSchemeofService,asaforesaid. Havingcarefully gonethrough thematerial before me,Ihold theviewthatinterestedpartyNo.3washoldingthepostofPorts Officer 3rdgradeasfrom 1.10.1977;thisisclearfrom anearlier 25 decisionoftherespondentAuthoritysetoutinblue36ofthePersonalFileofinterested partNo.3,whichisbeforeme.Itisthus clearthattheinterestedparty served:inthepostofPorts Officer 3rdgradefrom 1.10.1977,inthepostofPortsOfficer 2ndGrade from 1.4.1979and in the post of Ports Officer 1st grade from 30 1.1.83;hehadthereforecoveredtheaggregateof6yearsrequired bytheSchemeofServiceandhewaseligibletobeconsideredfor promotion to thepost of Senior Ports Officer to which hewas eventuallypromotedbytherespondentAuthorityinvirtueofthe 35 Loris J. Rodotheou v. Ports Authority
(1988)sub-judicedecision. Thecomplaint oftheapplicant underNo. 1aboveisaccordinglydismissed. ComplaintNo.2:Accordingtotheconfidential reportsofthe yea^s 1979-1982themeritoftheapplicantandthatofinterested 5 party No.3maybedescribedasmoreorlessequal. Furthermore interested party No.3hasanother weightyconsiderationinhisfavourinrespectofmerit:theOperationsManageroftherespondentAuthority-theHeadoftheDepartmentofthe applicantandtheinterestedpartyaswell-expressedtheviewthat 10 interestedpartNo.3(togetherwiththeremainingthreeinterested parties)werethecandidatesmostsuitableforpromotion. ItisapparentfromthepersonalfilesoftheapplicantandinterestedpartyNo.3thatthelatterisbetterqualified; inthisconnectionblue24inthepersonalfileoftheapplicantisindicativeofthe 15 positioninrespectofthesecondaryeducationoftheapplicant. Inthecircumstancesslightseniorityoftheapplicantwhowas promotedtothepostofPortsOfficer 1stgradeon 1.1.83 aswell, overtheinterestedpartyisinsignificant (Applicantwaspromoted tothepostofPortsOfficer 2ndgradeon 1.8.78,-videblue25in 20 hispersonal file - whilst interested party No.3wassopromoted on 1.4.1979). Inview of the above,complaint No,2alsofails astheapplicant failed toestablish striking superiorityoverinterestedparty No. 3;andwithout establishing striking superiority anAdminis- 25 trativeCourtcannotinterveneinordertosetasidethedecisionregardingsuch selection (videHadjiloannouv.Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1041 at p. 1045). Therenowremains for consideration complaint No.3which 3 hastwolegsnotablydueinquiryandduereasoning. ^ 36 3 C.L.R. Rodotheou v. Ports Authority Loris J. As regards theallegation of theapplicantthatthe sub-judice decision was reached without dueinquiry on behalf of the Re spondentAuthority thereis anotherinterconnectedissuenotably the setting upof a Committeeby theBoard of theRespondent 5 Authority (videAppendix Εattachedtothe opposition). TheCommittee inquestion,according tothedecision of the Boardof theRespondentAuthority, would,after consideringthe matterandafter havingconsultationswiththeManagementofthe Authority, submit proposals totheBoard in respect of theper10 sons towhompromotionwould be offerred. Itis apparentfromthe materialbefore me,thatthe Committee soappointed, considered thematter, examinedinteralia theeligi bility of candidates topromotionand after havingconsultations with theOperationsManagerof theAuthority recommended to 15 theBoard- oneof its members dissenting - thepromotionofthe interestedparties(includinginterestedpartyNo. 3). Itisclearfromthedecision of theBoarddated 15.12.83(vide Appendix "Z" attachedtotheopposition)thattheBoard"having considered thematterandhaving taken intoaccountthe recom20 mendationsof theCommitteeandallthematerialbefore it,"de cidedtopromotethefour interested parties (includinginterested party No.3) Theaforesaid decision of theBoarddated 15.12.83indicates thattheBoard did notabdicateits task.Itdid notthrow thebur25 denof decision ontheshoulders of the Committee.Farfrom it; although taking intoconsideration therecommendationsof the Committee,itcarriedoutanenquiry for itself;itwentthroughall thematerial before it,including thepersonalfilesandtheconfi dentialreportsof allcandidates, andreacheditsowndecision. 30 Having given tothemattermy bestconsideration,Iholdthe viewthatthesub-judice decisionwas reachedatby thecompetent administrative organ,notablythe Boardof theRespondentAthority,after thecarrying outofdueenquiry whichcannotbe faulted. 37 LorisJ. Rodotheou v. Ports Authority
(1988)Asregardsreasoning itiswell settledthat"reasoningbehind anadministrativedecisionmaybefound eitherinthedecisionitself orin theofficial recordsrelated thereto"(videHjiSavva v. TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R.174atp.205).Inthepresentcase theadministrativefilesproducedafford sufficient reasoningena- 5 blingunhinderedjudicialscrutiny. Intheresultpresentrecoursefailsforthereasonsabovestated; anditis accordinglydismissed.In thecircumstancesIhavedecidedtomakenoorderastoitscosts. Recoursedismissed. io Noorderastocosts. 38