3 C.L.R. 19S9 June21 [B0YADJ1S J | I\ THb ΜY1TER 01 ARTICLh 1460Γ Till ( ONSTITUTION n IASM PI rRiniib Applicant π hCTRicnΥ \mHORITY or CYPRUS Respondent (Ch,c \ o 721/SS) Judicialcontrol— failure in recordsuggestions bv managerolrespondent twthontv relating to tr.instu ol ottlcer — Renders judicial control impossible — Sub judicc decision annulled— Christodoulides and Another ». The Education Sen ice Commission (I9S6) > CLR 1617 applied Hv means of ihc sub judicc decision the interested party was transtcrrcd to thesub judicc post Inaccoidancewith the regulations in force the sub judice post could be filled either b> transfer orpromotion Theapplicant heldat the lime the immediate lower post The decision to fill the post bv transfer and not a promotion was influenced b> suggestions bv the Manager ot the Auihonu in rcipect ol which no recordhadbeen kept Subjudice decisionannulled \'oorderus tocosts Cases referredto Christodoulides andAnother ν EducationalSennce Commission(I9S6)3 CLR 1637, Nicolaidcs ν ElectricityAuthority of Cyprus(19S9) 3 CLR 1172, 723 Pctridcs χ n.V.C.
(1989)Petousis \ tleanciiv Authority otC\pnis (\o2)(19S9) iCl R 17>S Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to till the 5 \acant post ol Area Engineer (E\ecuti\e)by thetransfer of the interested party instead ol by thepromotion ot theapplicant Ο Styluiwdestor Ε Etsuuhwii lor the Applicant A Styluinidou (Miss)for G Cacoxanms. lorthe Respondent 10 Cur ddv. \ult BOYADJIS. J read the following judgment This recourse 15 raises a single point which is squarely covered by judicial authont\ It concerns the adequacy ot the reasoning which every administrative act or decision requires il it is to sur\i\e judicial control The point has arisen in the context ot the following admittedtacts 20 By its sub judice decision taken on 27 June 19S8, the respondent Authority filled the vacant post ot Area Engineer (Executive). Scale A13, by the transfer of the interested party Sotoclis. Sofocleous pursuant to his application for transfer to 25 the aforesaid post, instead ot by thepromotionof theapplicant. Theinterestedparty was holdingatthematerialtimethepost of Transmission Engineer (Substations). Scale also A. 13. whereas the applicant was holding the post of Electrical 30 Engineer, Scale Π 14 The post of Area Engineer(Executive) is a promotion post and under Regulation 13
(2)of the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (Conditions of Service) Regulations ot 1986. itisfilled eitherby thepromotionotanemployee holding, as the applicant did. a post of agrade immediately lower to it, 35 or by the transfer of an employee holding, as the interested party did,apost of equal grade The sub-judice decision is being challenged by theapplicant on a number of legal grounds including that of lack ot due 40 reasoning. 724 3 C.L.R. 5 Pctrides v. E.A.C. Boyadjis. J. It is an admitted fact that, in taking its decision, the respondent authority was influenced by the suggestions made and the views expressed by the Manager of the Authority and other officers thereof which, however, were not recorded and are. therefore, unknown both to the persons affected thereby and tothe Court. The aforesaid omission deprives the sub judice decision of control impossible. Moreover,itoffends againstbasicprinciples 10 of properadministration.Theconsequencesof suchanomission on the validity of an administrative act or decision were considered by the Full Bench in Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 426 between Andreas Christodoulides and Another v. The Educational Service Commission
(1986)3 CLR. 1637, 15 where it was treated as a fatal defect of the decision leaving to the Court no choice other than the annulment thereof. Ever since its issue the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench is being constantly followed andapplied on similar circumstancesby all the Judges of this Court who. in the exercise of their revisional 20 jurisdiction had the occasion which I have had to deal with similar cases. Examples are afforded by the recent decisionsin the cases of Stelios Nicolaides v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus (19S9) 3 C.L.R. 1172 and Spyros Petousis v. Electricity Authority of Cyprus fNo.2)
(1989)3C.L.R. 1738. 25 The same devastating consequences on the validity of the subjudice decision Howfrom theaforesaid admittedomission of the respondentAuthority in the present case. Itis vitiated by a fatal defect depriving meof anyalternative otherthan todeclare 30 itannulledandof nolegal eliect whatsoever, on thesoleground of lack of due reasoning. In the result,thesub judice decision is annulled. Noorderas to costs. 35 Subjudice decisionannulled. No order;LS"ΪΟ costs. 725