3 C.L.R. 1988 January 20 [LORIS,J.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION COSTAKISHADJIAGATHANGELOUANDOTHERS, Applicants, v. THEPORTSAUTHORITYOFCYRPUS, Respondent. (CaseNo. 143/84). PublicCorporations—PortsAuthorityofCyprus—Promotions—JudicialControl—Principlesapplicable—Failureofapplicantstoestablishstrikingsuperiority overinterestedparty—Applicant'scomplaintthattherespondents failedtoselectthemostsuitablecandidatemustbedismissed. 5 PublicCorporations—Ports Authority ofCyprus—Promotions—Setting up a Committeefor thepurpose ofsubmittingproposals totheBoard ofthe Authorityfor the personstowhom promotion shouldbe offered—Such proposals taken intoconsideration bytheBoard togetherwith all other material before it—As neitherthelawnortheRegulationsprecluded the ig setting upofsuchaCommitteeandastheBoardwentthroughallthematerialbeforeitandreacheditsowndecision,thesubjudicedecisioncannot Defaultedinthisrespect. Reasoningofanadministrativeact—Itmaybefoundeitherinthematerialitselforintheofficialrecordsrelatedthereto. 15 The facts of this case sufficiently appear in thejudgment of this Court. Recoursedismissed. Noorderasto costs.. 39 Hadjiagathangelou v. Ports Authority
(1988)Casesreferredto: Hadjiloannou v.Republic
(1983)3CX.R.1041; MeletisandOthersv.CyprusPortsAuthority
(1987)3C.L.R. 1988; HjiSawa v.Republic
(1972)3C.L.R.174; 5 Stavrou v.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttopromotethe interested partiestothepostofSeniorPortsOfficer in preference andinsteadoftheapplicants. E.Liatsou(Mrs.)for G. Cacoyiannis,for applicants. *0 N.PapaefstathiouforT.Papadopoulos,fortherespondent. H.Panayidesfor Y.Panayi,forinterestedpartyNo.
- K.Talarides,forinterestedpartiesNos.2and
- L. Papaphilippou,forinterestedpartyNo.
- Cur. adv.vult. 15 LORISJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Theapplicantsimpugn bymeansofthepresentrecoursethepromotionofthefourinterestedpartiestothepostofSeniorPortsOfficer withtheRespondent Authority as from 1.10.83,inpreference toand insteadof theapplicants. Themaincomplaintsof theapplicants,astheytranspire from thefive groundsof lawrelied uponin supportofthepresentrecourse,maybeconveniently grouped underthreeHeadsasfollows: 40 20 3C.L.R. Hadjiagathangelou v.Ports Authority LorisJ. (A)Failureoftherespondenttoselectthemostsuitablecandidate (Ground 2) -Ignoring the superior meritof theapplicants (Ground 1)andinparticulartheirallegedsuperiorconfidentialreportsaswellastheirrecommendation bytheirsuperior forpro5 motion (Ground3). (B) Alleged violation by the respondent of the principleof equality tothedetrimentof applicants,contrary toArticle28of theConstitution (Ground4). (C)Failuretoprovideduereasoning for thesub-judicedeci10 sion(Ground5). Ishallproceedtoexaminethecomplaintsasgroupedabove: 15 20 25 "Itisasettledprincipleof administrativelawthatwhenan organ,suchasthePublicServiceCommission,selectsacandidateon thebasisofcomparison withothers,itisnotnecessary to show, in order tojustify his selection, that he was strikingly superiortotheothers.Ontheotherhand,anadministrativeCourtcannotinterveneinordei tosetasidethedecision regarding suchselection unlessitissatisfied, byanapplicant inarecoursebefore it,thathewasaneligiblecandidatewho wasstrikingly superiortotheonewhowasselected, because onlyinsuchacasetheorganwhichhasmadetheselection for thepurposeofanappointmentorpromotionisdeemedtohave exceeded the outer limits of its discretion and, therefore, to haveactedinexcessorabuseofitspowers..." (Hadjifoannouv.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1041atp.1045). Theapplicantsfailed toestablish strikingsuperiority overthe interestedpersons;areflection onthemeritsandqualificationsof thepartiesasdisclosedintheconfidentialreportsandthepersonal files ofthecandidates,indicatesthattheinterestedpartieswere 30 bettermeritedthantheapplicants,whilsttwooftheinterestedparties, notablyInt.Parties2and4,hadsuperiorqualificationscomparedwithapplicantsandtheremaininginterestedparties,taking 41 LorisJ. Hadjiagathangelou v.Ports Authority
(1988)aviewmostfavourable totheapplicants,hadatleastequalqualifications. The Operations Manager of the Respondent Authority -the HeadoftheDepartmentoftheApplicantsandtheinterestedparties-expressedtheviewthattheinterestedpartieswerethecandi- 5 datesmostsuitableforpromotion,anotherweightyconsideration inevaluatingthemeritsofthepartiesforpromotion. Thusthecomplaintsoftheapplicants,emergingfromgrounds of law under Nos. 1to 3 on the recourse, and grouped under Head(A)abovearedoomedtofailure. 10 The complaints of the applicants grouped under (b) above emerge from ground ofLawNo.4of therecoursewhichstates that "TheRespondentAuthorityactedunderastateofdiscriminationagainsttheapplicantsastheywereunequallytreatedvis-a-vis the interested parties in violation of Article 28of the Constitu- 15 tion". This complaint, which is quite vague, was not pursued any further atalatterstageandIcouldtracenothingtothateffectin !he writtenaddressof theapplicantsorelsewhere.Idonottnirutmm. thesaidcomplaintrefers toregulation24oftheCyprusPortsAu- 20 thority (Officers' Schemes of Service and Other Conditionsof Service) Regulations 1982,(anissuesettled bytheJudgmentof theFullBenchofthisCourtinAntonisMeletisandothersv.The CyprusPortsAuthority
(1987)3C.L.R. 1988)asall theapplicantsandtheinterestedpartieswereconsideredforpromotionby 25 therespondentAuthorityintheinstantcase. In thecircumstances in connection with theaforesaid vague uncertaincomplaintIshallconfine myselfinstatingthismuch:I wasunabletotraceaniotaofevidenceinrespectoftheallegedviolationbytheRespondentAuthorityoftheprincipleofequalityto 30 thedetrimentoftheapplicantsconcerningthesub-judicedecision. Beforeproceedingtoexaminethelastcomplaintoftheappli42 3 C.L.R. Hadjiagathangelou v. Ports Authority LorisJ. cantsnotably "failure toprovide adequatereasoningforthesubjudice decision" I consideritnecessary todispose of,albeitbrief ly, anothercomplaintwhich although notappearing inthebody of the recourse,hasbeeninserted inthewritten addressfiledon 5 behalf oftheapplicantsandhasbeendealthwith atlengthby the written address filed bytheRespondentandinterestedpartiesas well.This complaintrefers tothesetting upofa Committee by the Board of the Respondent Authority (vide Appendix Ε At tachedtothe opposition). 10 InthefirstplaceitiscleartomymindthattheBoardoftheRe spondentAuthority wasnotprecluded byanylaworRegulation from settingupsucha Committee. TheCommitteeinquestion,according tothedecision ofthe BoardoftheRespondent Authority,(vide Appendix 5attached to 15 theopposition)would,after considering the matterandafter hav ing consultationswith theManagementoftheAuthority, submit proposals totheBoardforthepersonstowhompromotion would be offered. Itisclearfrom thematerial before methattheCommittee so 20 appointedconsideredthe matterandafter havingcarriedoutcon sultations with theOperationsManageroftheAuthorityrecom mendedtothe Board- oneofitsmembersdissenting - thepromo tionoftheinterestedparties. Itis apparentfromthedecision oftheBoard dated 15,12.83 25 (vide Appendix "Z"attachedto theopposition) thattheBoard "havingconsideredthematterandhavingtakeninto account the recommendationsoftheCommitteeandallthematerialbeforeit", decidedtopromotethe fourinterestedparties. Theaforesaid decision oftheBoarddated 15.12.83 indicates 30 thattheBoarddidnotabdicateits task.Itdidnot transfer itsduty ontheshouldersoftheCommittee.Ittookinto consideration the recommendationsoftheCommittee,butitexaminedthe casefor itself, went throughallthematerial before it,including theper43 LorisJ. Hadjiagathangelou v.Ports Authority
(1988)sonalfilesand the confidential reports of allcandidates which werebeforeit,andreacheditsowndecision.Inthecicrumsatnces thesub-judicedecision,whichisthedecisionoftheBoardofthe RespondentAuthority,wasreachedatlegitimatelybythecompetentadministrativeorganandthereforeitcannotbefaulted inthis 5 respect. Comingnowtoreasoning.Itiswellsettledthat"reasoningbehindanadministrativedecisionmaybefound eitherinthedecision itself orin theofficial recordsrelatedthereto".HjiSavva v. TheRepublic
(1972)3C.L.R.174atp. 205-videalsoStavrou 10 v.Republic
(1987)3C.L.R. 725. And in the case under consideration the administrative files produced constitute sufficient reasoningenablingamplejudicial scrutiny. Foralltheabovereasonspresentrecoursefailsandisaccord- 15 inglydismissed. Lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 44