3 C.L.R. 1984 March 15 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., L. LOIZOU, MALACHTOS, Lotus, STYLIANIDES, J J.] ANDREAS VLAHOU AND OTHERS, Appellants, v. THE REPBBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 316). 5 Legitimate interest—Article 146.2 of the Constitution—Acceptance of promotions to post of Instructor in Secondary Technical Edu cation—On salary scale 9 without any reservation—No legitimate interest to file a recourse against the non-appointment to posts with salary scales A%, Λ10 and /ill. 10 After the appellants were offered, on the 16th July 1982, promotion to posts of Instructor with salary scale A9 they replied in writing that they accepted their promotions with full reservation of their rights as regards the date of commencement of such promotions to the posts in question. 15 20 Though in their recourses as originally drafted the appel lants sought the annulment of the decision of the respondent Educational Service Commission to promotethem as Instructors, in Secondary Technical Education, to posts with salary scale A9 as from only the 1st June 1982 and not as from an earlier date in their written address before the trial Judge their claim was reframed and became, in effect, a claim that they ought to have been promoted under section 4(b) of Law 12/81,to posts with salary scales A8, A10, A l l . Upon appeal against the dismissal of their recourses: Held, that inasmuch as the appellants have accepted their promotions to the said posts with salary scale A9 without any reservation, except as regards the date of commencement of 1319 Vtahou and Others v. Republic
(1984)such promotions, they do not possess a legitimate interest, as envisaged under Article 146.2 of the Constitution, entitling themto challengetheir said promotions by means of a recourse under Article 146 (see, inter alia, Myrianthis v. The Republic,
(1977)3 C.L.R. 165, 168); and that, accordingly, the appeal 5 must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: Myrianthis v. Republic
(1977)3 C.L.R. 165 at p. 168; HadjiConstantinou v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 184 at p. 194; 10 Tomboliv. CY.T.A.
(1980)3 C.L.R. 266 at p. 277; and on appeal
(1982)3 C.L.R. 149 at p. 154; Neocleous v. Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 497 at p. 508; MetaphorikiEteria "Ayios- Antonios" Spilia-Courdalt Ltd. v. Republic
(1981)3 C.L.R. 221 at p. 236; 15 Zambakides v. Republic
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1017 at p. 1025; loannou v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 150at p. 154; Stylianides v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 672 at p. 678; Group of FiveBus Tours Ltd. v. Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 793 at p. 804; 20 Goulielmos v. Educational Service Commission
(1983)3 C.L.R. 883 at p. 903. Appeal. Appeal against the judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Pikis, J.) given on the 27th April, 1983 (Revi- 25 sional Jurisdiction Case No. 403/82)* whereby their recourse against the decision of the respondent to emplace applicants to posts on salary scale A9.as from 1.6.1982 and not from an earlier date was dismissed. A.S. Angelides, for the appellants. , ^ 30 R. Vrahimi {Mrs.), for the respondents. Cur. adv. vuit. * Reported as Paphitis and Others v. Republic in
(1983)3 C.L.R. 255. 1320 3 C.L.R. Vlahou and Others v. Republic TRIANTAFYLUDESP.read thefollowing judgment of the Court. The appellants, by a recourse (No. 403/82) filed under Article 146 of the Constitution, were seeking, in effect, the annulment of thedecision of therespondent Educational Service Commis5 sion to promote them as Instructors, in Secondary Technical Education, to posts with salary scale A9 as from only the 1st June 1982and not as from an earlier date. Their recourse wasdismissed and they then filed the present appeal. 10 The sub judice decision of the respondent Commission was reached on the 19thJune 1982in accordance with section 4(
- a)of the Public Educational Service (Increase of Salaries, Restructuring and Placement of Certain Posts on Unified Salary Scales) Law, 1981 (Law 12/81), as amended by Laws 23/81, 15 51/81 and 26/82. . By means of the written address which was filed by counsel for the appellants before the trial Judge their claim was reframed and, insteadofbeingonlyaclaim basedonthe complaint that they ought to have been promoted to posts on salary scale 20 A9 earlier than the 1stJune 1982,it became, in effect, a claim that they ought to have been promoted, under section 4(
- b)of Law 12/81, to posts with salary scales A8, AIO,A l l . Counsel appearing for the respondent in her written address did notobject, asshemight have done, to.the alteration ofthe 25 claim of the appellants and she proceeded to answer the reframed claim of the appellants; andthe trial Judge determined the case onthebasis ofthewritten addresses of counsel. After the appellants were offered, on the 16th July 1982, promotion to posts of Instructor with salary scale A9 they re30 plied in writing—(appellant 1 and appellant 3 on the 25th September 1982and appellant 2 on the 24th September 1982) —that they accepted their promotions with full reservation of their rights as regards the date of commencement of such promotionstothepostsinquestion; and, also,counsel appearing 35 for appellants l· and 3 (by letters dated 2nd August 1982and' "4th August 1982, respectively) accepted on their behalf the offers made to them for promotion, but with reservation of their, rights, as regards the date of commencement of their promotions. , 1321 Triantafyllides P. Vlahou and Others v. Republic The matterofthedateasfromwhich their promotions should have been effected was argued before the trial Judge who, however, did not find any merit in it. It was raised, also, by means of one of the grounds of appeal in the present proceedings before us but this ground was not, eventually, argued and thu> we must regard it, for the purposes of this appeal, as having been abandoned.
(1984)5 So, we are faced only with the claims of the appellants that they ought to have been promoted to posts with salary scales A8, A10, A l l , under section 4(
- b)of Law 12/81, instead of to 10 posts with salary scale A9, under section 4(
- a)of the same Law. We have reached the conclusion that inasmuch as the appellants have accepted their promotions to the said posts with salary scale A9 without any reservation, except as regards the date of commencement of such promotions, they do not possess 15 a legitimate interest, as envisaged under Article 146.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to challenge their said promotions by means of a recourse under Article 146; and this conclusion is based on well established principles of administiative law and on the correct application of the said Article 146.2 (see, 20 in this lespect, intei alia, Myrianthis v. The Republic,
(1977)3 C.L.R. 165, 168, HadjiConstantinou v. The Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 184, 194, Tomboli v. The CyprusTelecommunications Authority,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 266, 277 and on appeal
(1982)3 C.L.R. 149, 154, Neocleous v. The Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 25 497, 508, Metaphoriki Eteria "Ayios Antonios" Spilia-Courdali Ltd. v. The Republic,
(1981)3 C.L.R. 221, 236, Zambakides v. The Republic,
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1017, 1025, Ioannou v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 150, 154, Stylianides v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 672, 678, The Group of Five Bus Tour Ltd. 30 v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 793, 804 and Goulielmos v. The EducationalService Commission,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 883,903). Consequently, this appeal, as well as the recourse of the appellants, has to be dismissed and it is not necessary to deal with any other reasons for which the recourse of the appellants 35 was dismissed by the trial Judge; and any issues which have been argued in relation to such reasons we leave open. We have decided to make no order as to the costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. No order 40 as to costs. 1322