3 CL.R. 1981 July 10 [MALACHTOS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THECONSTITUTION ANDREAS IACOVIDES, 'Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE PUBLIC SERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 385/78). 5 10 15 20 Natural justice—Rules of—Public Officers—Promotions—Applicant not promoted, though suitablefor promotion, because ofCentral InformationServicereport that he is "not loyal and does not respect the law"—Noreasons given insupport of such allegations —And applicant not prosecuted criminally or disciplinarily and notgiven a chance to beheard—Rules of naturaljustice violated— Sub judice promotions annulled—Koudounas v. Republic
(1981)3 CL.R. 46 adopted andfollowed. , This recourse was directed against the validity of the decision of the respondent Public Service Commission concerning the promotion or secondment of the interested parties to the post of Agricultural Officer class II in preference and instead of the applicant. The facts which gave rise to this recourse are the sameasthoseinKoudounasv.Republic
(1981)3CL.R.46namely, that though both applicant and Koudounas were selected for promotion and/or secondment to the above post they were not finally promcted and/or seconded because of the contents of a report from the Central Information Service (ΚΥΡ) to the effect that they were not loyal and they did not respect the law. Counsel for both parties adopted the facts ofKoudounas case and supported the judgment of the Court in that case by means of which the decision of the Commission was declared null and void. 305 Iacovfdes τ. Republic
(1981)The Court fully adopting the reasoning in the Koudounas case (supra) declared the subjudicedecision null and void. Sub judice decision annulled. Cases referred to: Koudounas v. Republic
(1981)3 CL.R. 46; 5 Tzavellas v. Republic
(1975)3 CL.R. 490; Tsangarides and Others v. Republic
(1981)3 CL.R. 117. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to promote and/or second the interested parties to the post of Agricu- 10 ltural Officer Class II. M. Christofides, for the applicant. G. Constantinou (Miss), Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 15 MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. The applicant inthisrecourseclaims adeclarationoftheCourtthatthedecision and/or act of the respondent Commission which was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of the 14th July, 1978, under Notifications Nos. 1377 and 1378 by which the interested 20 party Charalambos G. Ipsarides was promoted to the per manent post of Agricultural Officer Class II, and interested parties Georghios Kleanthous Charis, Iacovos Michael Yiakoumettis, Georghios S. Xystouris, Kleanthis A. Pratsos, Christos N. Motides, Loizos N. Markides, and Phoebus L. Lyssandritis, 25 were seconded to the temporary post of Agricultural Officer Class II, is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The present applicant, who was first appointed on 4.1.1965 as an agricultural assistant on daily wages and was promoted to the permanent post of Assistant Agricultural Officer on 30 1.6.1969, and the applicant in Recourse No.397/78 namely, Christos Koudounas, together with the interested parties in this recourse, were selected for promotion and/or secondment tofillupeight vacancies, i.e.onepermanentandseven temporary posts of Agricultural Officer Class II, as being on the whole 35 the best candidates. 306 3 CX.R. Iacotidesv.Repnblic MalachtosJ. All the other relevant facts of this recourse are sufficiently stated in the Koudounas case (Recourse No. 397/78) which is reported in
(1981)3 CL.R. page. 46." • ' The legal point involved in this recourse, as well as in the 5 Koudounas case, is that when-the respondent Commission asked the Central Information Service (ΚΥΡ), as to the loyalty of the candidates, the applicant in this recourse, as well as Koudounas, were reported that they are not loyal and they do notrespect thelaw. Onthisground only neither thepresent 10 applicant nor Koudounas were promoted. In addressing the Court today counsel for applicant adopted the facts of Koudounas case with the modifications applicable to the present applicant, and supported the judgment of the Court inthatcaseas aresult of which thedecision of the respon15 dent Commission was declared null and void. He further referred to thecase of Tzavellas v. The Republic
(1975)3CL.R. 490 and the case of Tsangarides and Othersv. The Republic
(1981)3 CL.R. 117. Counsel for the respondent Commission, very rightly in my 20 view,did not support theopposition where it is stated that the decision complained of was rightly and legally taken and she adopted the reasoning in the Koudounas case and the cases referred to therein. IntheKoudounas casethepromotionof allthe eightinterested 25 parties was attacked but the promotion of only four of them was declared by the Court as null and void, namely, that of Kleanthis A. Pratsos, Christos N.Motides,Loizos N. Markides and Phoebus L. Lyssandritis. Counsel for applicant stated that inview of thefact that the 30 promotion of these.four interested parties was declared null and void in the Koudounas case, it is not necessary to declare in this recourse their promotion as being null and void. In view of the admitted facts in this recourse and what has beenstatedby bothcounsel andthereasoning in the Koudounas 35 case, which I fully adopt, having expressed the same views in Tsangarides case (supra), I declare thedecision of therespon dent Commission promoting interested party Charalambos G. Ipsarides to thepermanent(Dev.) Post of Agricultural Officei, 307 Malactatoe J. IacoTidee v. Republic
(1981)Class II, as well as the secondment of interested parties Georghios K. Charis, lacovos M. Yiakoumettis and Georghios S. Xystouris to the Temporary (Dev.) Post of Agricultural Officer Class II, as null and void. The respondent to pay£25.- againstthecostsoftheapplicant. 5 Subjudicedecision annulled. Order for costs as above. 308