(1984) 3 CLR 1358
[*1358] 1983 September 30
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
CHRISTAKIS MICHAEL AND OTHERS,
Applicants,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
1. THE CHIEF OF POLICE,
2. THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR,
Respondents.
(Cases Nos. 158/77, 179/77, 183/77,
184/77, 185/77, 187/77, 188/77,
189/77, 190/77, 191/77, 193/77,
194/77, 196/77).
Police Force—Promotions—Main reason for which interested parties were selected, instead of the applicants, was their suitability for restructuring the Police following the abortive coup d’etat of July, 1974—“Exceptional circumstances”—May render possible a deviation from legality—To the extent to which any of the promotions was not effected in strict conformity with a relevant legislative provision or principle of administrative law it had to be treated, in view of the exceptional circumstances in which it was effected, as constituting a permissible deviation from legality.
“Exceptional circumstances”—May render possible a deviation from legality.
The applicants challenged promotions to the rank of Police Inspector which were made by the Chief of Police, with the approval of the Minister of Interior.
The main reason for which the interested parties were selected instead of the applicants was the paramount need to rejuvenate the Police Force after the abortive coup d’etat of July 1974, and that, consequently, there were chosen for promotion to [*1359] Police Inspectors those of the sergeants who appeared to be the most suitable for the purpose of restructuring the police in a manner that would render it able to cope with the exceptional circumstances which our country was facing at the time.
Counsel for the applicants contended that the sub judice promotions were not effected in compliance with the relevant legislative provisions and with the principles of administrative law applicable to the selection of those to be promoted.
Held, that “exceptional circumstances” may render possible a deviation from strict legality; that on the contents of the material before the Court this is a situation in which “exceptional circumstances” justified fully deviation from the strict letter of relevant legislative provisions, such as regulation 6(2)(3) of the Police (Promotion) Regulations, 1958, as well as from certain principles of administrative law, and that whenever such deviation has occurred it did not exceed what was necessary in the circumstances in which the promotions of the interested parties were effected; that, consequently, to the extent to which any one of the promotions of the interested parties was not effected in strict conformity with a relevant legislative provision or principle of administrative law it has to be treated, in view of the exceptional circumstances in which it was effected, as constituting a permissible deviation from legality and, therefore, it should not be annulled.
Applications dismissed.
Cases referred to:
Savoulla v. Republic (1973) 3 C.L.R. 706 at pp. 714, 715;
Attorney-General of the Republic v. Ibrahim, 1964 C.L.R. 195 at p. 258;
Aristides v. Republic (1983) 3 C.L.R. 1507;
Koudounas v. Republic (1981) 3 C.L.R. 46 at p. 54;
Tsangarides v. Republic (1981) 3 C.L.R. 117 at p. 122;
HjiGeorghiou v. Republic (1981) 3 C.L.R. 587 at p. 589;
Komodikis v. Republic (1982) 3 C.L.R. 81. [*1360]
Recourses.
Recourses against the decision of the respondents to promote the interested parties to the rank of Police Inspector in the Police Force in preference and instead of the applicants.
E. Lemonaris for the applicants in Case Nos. 158/77, 190/77, 155/77.
L. N. Clerides for the applicant in Case No. 179/77.
A. Pandelides for the applicant in Case No. 183/77.
K. Michaelides for the applicants in Case Nos. 184/77,185/77.
I. Typographos for the applicant in Case No. 187/77.
E. Efstathiou for the applicant in Case No. 188/77.
A.S. Angelides for the applicant in Case No. 189/77.
A. Markides for the applicant in Case No. 191/77.
A. Magos for the applicant in Case No. 194/77.
Chr. Mitsides for the applicant in Case No. 196/77.
N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. The applicants in these recourses, which have been heard together in view of their nature, challenge promotions to the rank of Police Inspector which were made by the Chief of Police, with the approval of the Minister of Interior, on the basis of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Police Law, Cap. 285, as amended, in this respect, by section 2 of the Police (Amendment) Law, 1966 (Law 29/66).
The relevant Regulations are the Police (Promotion) Regulations, 1958 (No. 281 in the Subsidiary Legislation of 1958) and, in particular, paragraphs (2) and (3) of regulation 6.
It appears from a letter, which was addressed in relation to the sub judice promotions by the Chief of Police to the Minister of Interior on the 29th April 1977, that, in submitting for approval to the Minister the list of those to be promoted, the Chief of Police took into account, among other things, material which had been placed before a meeting in which there participated, on the 27th April 1977, not only the Minister of Interior [*1361] himself but, also, the late President of the Republic His Beatitude Archbishop Makarios.
As regards the involvement of the President of the Republic in consultations regarding those to be promoted useful reference may be made to Savoulla v. The Republic, (1973) 3 C.L.R. 706, 714, 715.
It is clear from the letter of the 29th April 1977 that the main reason for which those who were promoted—(and are now the interested parties)—were selected instead of the applicants was the paramount need to rejuvenate the Police Force after the abortive coup d’etat of July 1974, and that, consequently, there were chosen for promotion to Police Inspectors those of the sergeants who appeared to be the most suitable for the purpose of restructuring the police in a manner that would render it able to cope with the exceptional circumstances which our country was facing at the time.
It has, furthermore, to be borne in mind, in this respect, that regulation 2(2), of the aforementioned Regulations of 1958, provides as follows:
“(2) Seniority shall be taken into account, but shall not be allowed to govern promotion, and greater importance shall be attached to professional ability and personal qualities of leadership, loyalty, initiative, excellence of character, real and a true appreciation of the objects of the Police”.
The criteria which are envisaged as being of “greater importance” by regulation 2(2), above, were, indeed, of really vital significance in selecting those to be promoted from sergeants to Police Inspectors at a time when the police had to be reorganized in such a manner, and to such an extent, as to become as effective as possible in discharging its paramount duty of being the guardian of law and order when our country was recovering from internal subversion and was ravaged by foreign aggression.
It is, indeed, in this context that occured the involvement of the President of the Republic and of the Minister of Interior in the consultations which preceded the selection by the Chief of Police of those who were to be promoted. [*1362]
It has been contended by counsel for the applicants that the sub judice promotions were not effected in compliance with the relevant legislative provisions and with the principles of administrative law applicable to the selection of those to be promoted.
I do not, however, intend to examine the case of each applicant or of each interested party individually because, on the basis of all the material before me and of the contents, in particular, of the aforementioned letter of the 29th April 1977, I have reached the conclusion that this is a situation in which “exceptional circumstances” justified fully deviation from the strict letter of relevant legislative provisions, such as regulation 6(2)(3) of the Regulations of 1958, as well as from certain principles of administrative law, and that whenever such deviation has occurred it did not exceed what was necessary in the circumstances in which the promotions of the interested parties were effected.
That “exceptional circumstances” may render permissible a deviation from strict legality on the ground of paramount public interest is a tenet which has become firmly entrenched in public law (see, inter alia, The Attorney-General of the Republic v. Ibrahim, 1964 C.L.R. 195, 258 and Aristides v. The Republic, to be reported in (1983) 3 C.L.R.).
Consequently, to the extent to which any one of the promotions of the interested parties was not effected in strict conformity with a relevant legislative provision or principle of administrative law it has to be treated, in view of the exceptional circumstances in which it was effected, as constituting a permissible deviation from legality and, therefore, it should not be annulled.
Before concluding this judgment I would like to distinguish clearly these cases from other instances in which candidates for promotion were treated as not being loyal to the State because of accusations against them in respect of which they had not been given an opportunity to defend themselves (see, for example, Koudounas v. The Republic, (1981) 3 C.L.R. 46, 54, Tsangarides v. The Republic, (1981) 3 C.L.R. 117, 122, HjiGeorghiou v. The Republic, (1981) 3 C.L.R. 587, 589 and Komodikis v. The Republic, (1982) 3 C.L.R. 81). In the present cases no specific accusation against any particular applicant [*1363] was decisively taken into account in not selecting him for promotion, but there were promoted the interested parties, instead of the applicants, because the interested parties were found to be the most suitable in the light of many relevant considerations, including their absolute loyalty to the State, especially at times of crisis.
On the basis of all the foregoing I have decided that these recourses cannot succeed and have to be dismissed; but I have decided not to make any order as to their costs.
Recourses dismissed. No
order as to costs.
cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο