MICHAEL ν. MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
(1988)3 CLR 910 ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ CyLaw | Αναφορικά μ'εμάς | " target="_top">Επικοινωνία | Όροι χρήσης Έρευνα - Κατάλογος Αποφάσεων - Εμφάνιση Αναφορών (Noteup on) - Αρχείο σε μορφή PDF - Αφαίρεση Υπογραμμίσεων
(1988)3 CLR 910 1988 April 30 [KOURRIS,j.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION MELIS MICHAEL, Applicant, v.
- THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
- THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL, Respondents. (CaseNo.144/87). Public Officer-promotions-Competency-The only competent organ is the Public Service Commission-Recourse impugning validity of refusal to promote-Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Director of Personnel could be made parties-Recourse dismissed on that ground. Revisional jurisdiction-Practice-Recourse for annulment-Parties-Respondents not having competency in the matter-They could not be joined as respondents. Public Officers-Promotions-Change of salary scale-Provision for promotion if inter alia an officer serves for a year on the top of his scale-Demand for promotion based on service at top scale of the old scale- Unjustified-There is no vested right in a scheme of service. Public Officers-Promotions-There is no vested right to promotion. Public Officers-Schemes of service-There is no vested right to a scheme of service. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Court. Recourse dismissed. Costs against applicant. Cases referred to: Alexandrou and Others v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 15; Economides v. The Republic
(1972)3 CL.R. 506; Georghiou and Others v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 827; Papadopoulou v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 332; Stavrou and Another v. The Republic,
(1987)3 C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to promote applicant to the post of Accounting Officer 1st Grade. A. Papacharalambous, for the applicant. A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. KOURRIS J. read the following judgment. The applicant by the present recourse seeks a declaration of the Court that the refusal of the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Accounting Officer, 1st Grade, and communicated to him on 28.12.1986 is void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The applicant was appointed in the post of Accounting Officer 3rd Grade on a daily basis on 22.11.1975 and on 2.8.1976 he became permanent in that post. On 15.12.1978 he was promoted to the post of Accounting Officer, 2nd Grade, under salary scale 9 (£926 x 46 - 1220). Applicant on 1.1.1979 was emplaced under salary scale A7 (£2100 x 105 - 3150) by virtue of the Public Service (Increase of Salaries and Restructuring of Salary Scales and Certain Offices) Law 1979 (Law 58/79) published on 2.7.1979 and having retrospective effect as from 1.1.
- Throughout the years 1978 - 1987 (exhibit 1) there was in the Budget Laws the following provision with regard to Accounting Officers 2nd Grade:- "Accounting Officers, 2nd Grade, with an appropriate University Degree or professional accounting qualification may be promoted to the post of Accounting Officer, 1st Grade, on completion of one year on the maximum of the salary scale of their post, irrespective of the existence of vacancies or the number of posts in the 1st Grade on condition that the number of serving Accounting Officers, 1st, 2nd and 3rd Grade, will not exceed the approved establishment of the respective posts taken together." It should be noted that under the scheme of service of the old salary scale 9, an Accounting Officer 2nd Grade could reach the top scale within 7 years, whereas the schemes of service of the new salary scale, A.7 envisaged 10 years to reach the top scale. Applicant possessed the academic qualifications, which is a University Degree and thought that he was eligible for promotion if he completed 7 years service and also served one year at the top scale according to the scheme of service of the old salary scale 9, despite his emplacement in salary scale A7 and he addressed a letter dated 20.10.1986 to the Director of the Public Administration and Personnel Service through the Accountant-General (exhibit A of the application), and he requested him to place his request before the Public Service Commission. that he had a vested right to be promoted within 8 years. This is not an office with a combined establishment The Accountant-General forwarded applicant's letter to the Director of Public Administration and Personnel Service with a covering letter dated 27.10.1986, agreeing with the contentions of the applicant and recommending his promotion. (Appendix II to the opposition). The Director of the Public Administration and Personnel Service rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that applicant had to serve one year on the top of salary scale A7 to be eligible for promotion (Appendix III to the opposition). Hence the present recourse. Before dealing with the substance of the application, I would like to observe that the appropriate authority for promotions of public officers is the Public Service Commission established under the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67), and riot the Director of Public Administration and Personnel Service. In the present case, the applicant filed a recourse against the, Ministry of Finance and the Director of Public Administration and Personnel Service, alleging that they refused to promote him to the post of Accounting Officer, 1st Grade.Obviously, the appropriate organ for promotions is the Public Service Commission and it follows that neither the Minister of Finance nor the Director of Public Administration and Personnel Service could be made parties, as they could not have exercised any competence in the matter. For this reason, the recourse is dismissed. I propose to deal with the substance of the recourse if it is held that applicant rightly proceeded against the Minister of Finance and the Director of Public Administration and Personnel Service. It is settled in administrative law that a Public Officer has not a vested right for promotion (See Georghios Alexandrou and Others v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 15). Also, the contention of applicant that he has a vested right in the old scheme of service has no substance. No such right exists. (See Georghios Economides v. The Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 506; Costas Georghios 5 and Others v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 827; Papadopoullou v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R., 332; and Stavrou and Another v. Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 276). For all these reasons, the recourse of the applicant fails with costs applicant him to be assessed by the Registrar. Recourse dismissed with costs against applicant. cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο