(1984)1984 December 17 [PIKIS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSTANTINOS NEOPHYTOU, Applicant, v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents. (Case No. 235/84). Public Officers—Promotions—Schemes of service—Interpretation—• Principles applicable—Requirement of "5 years service in the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer" in the scheme of service for the post of Veterinary Officer tAt—Reasonably open to the respondent to construe such scheme as requiring 5 years service 5 in the abovepost and not experience of a kind normally acquired by an Assistant Veterinary Officer. The applicant, an Assistant Veterinary Officer, was a candidate for promotion to the post of Veterinary Officer A. The required qualifications for promotion, under the relevant scheme of 10 service, were "at least five years service in the position of Veterinary Officer/Assistant Veterinary Officer". Applicant had served for less than five years in the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer but between 15.11.1976 and 16.10.1978, whilst holding the substantive post of Clerical Assistant, he discharged on 15 secondment the duties of an Assistant Veterinary Officer. The Public Service Commission ruled that he was ineligible for promotion because he lacked the above qualification; hence this recourse. Held, after setting out the principles governing interpretation of schemesof service—videpp. 1468-1469post,that theinterpretationattached to the scheme of service by the respondents was plainlyopen to them;thatnot onlyitwasopentothembutitwas 1466 20 3 C.L.R. Neophytou τ. Republic 10 . inescapable on a grammatical construction of its provisions; that what was postulated, was service in a particular post and not experience of any kind; that the construction placed upon theschemebythePublicService Commissionwas alsoconsonant with the objects of the scheme intended to lay down the pre requisites for promotion, permissible under s.30(l)(c) of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67) only from one grade to the one immediately above; that if the argument of Counsel for the applicant were upheld,the scheme of service would have to be read as requiring— 15 (a) holding the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer and, (b) experienceofa kindnormallyacquiredbyanAssistant Veterinary Officer in the Government Service, a construction wholly in compatible with the provisions of the scheme; accordingly the recourse must fail. 5 Application dismissed. Case referred to: PankypriosSyntechnia DimosionYpallilon v. Republic
(1978)3 C.L.R. 27; 20 Vakis v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 952; Skouridou v. Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1081; Der Parthogh v. C.B.C.
(1984)3 C.L.R. 635; Republic v. Aivaliotis
(1971)3 C.L.R. 71; Papapetrou v. Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 61 at p. 69. 25 Recourse. Recourseagainst thedecisionof thetherespondenttopromote the interested party to the post of Veterinary Officer A in pre ference and instead of the applicant. N. Papaefstathioufor T. Papadopoulos, for the applicant. 30 A. Vladimirou, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vuit. PIKIS J.read thefollowing judgment. Iam in agreement with counsel that only one issue calls for consideration: The eligj- ,1467 Pikis J. Neophytou τ. Republic
(1984)bility of applicant for appointment to the post of Veterinary Officer A*. If eligible, thesubjudice decision must necessarily be annulled, as counsel acknowledged, for misconception of material facts, that is, the facts relevant to the eligibility of the applicant for promotion, and misinterpretation of the relevant clause of the scheme of service. 5 It is appropriatetopraisetheeffort madetoconfine theissues meriting consideration, a course invariably· conducive to the good administration ofjustice. It helps the Courtconcentrate on thesubstantive issues,it is timesaving and,generally contri- 10 butea to the speedy administration of justice. The Public Service Commission construed the clause of the scheme of service defining qualifications for piomotion, as requiring five years service in the post of Veterinary Officer or Assistant Veterinary Officer, and thus ruled applicant to be 15 ineligible because he admittedly lacked the above qualification. Applicant hadservedfor lessthanfiveyears in thepost ofAsst. Veterinary Officer andhisnamewas,onaccountofthatconsider ation,deleted from thelistof candidates eligiblefor promotion. It is the case of the applicant, the decision,is wrong because 20 it rests on an erroneous interpretation of the scheme of service and ultimate misappreciation of his qualifications. Allegedly, he satisfied the relevant qualifications requirements by having served on special assignment in the Veterinary Department for an additional period of nearly two years, between 15.11.1976 25 and 16.10.1978 notwithstanding the fact he held, at the time, the substantive post of Clerical Assistant. It is a fact that between theaforementioned dates hedischarged onsecondment the duties of an Asst. Vet. Officer. Upon proper appreciation of the facts, the question is reduced to one of interpretation 30 of the scheme of service, in particular, the expression set out in para.
(1)of the required qualifications "Πενταετή? τουλάχι στον υπηρεσία εις την θέσιν Κτηνιατρικού Λειτουργού/Βοηθού Κτηνιατρικού Λειτουργού . „ " (At leastfiveyears serviceintheposition of Veterinary Officer/ Assistant Veterinary Officer ). * Now reported in
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1081. 1468 35 3 C.L.R. Neopbytou τ.Republic Pikis J. Although schemes of service are legislative instruments', the construction and interpretation of their provisions is not subject to the canons of construction of legislation. Ihad occasion to dwell on this subject and explain the differences S inDer Parthogh v. C.B.C.
(1984)3C.L.R. 635. Unlikeordinary enactments, a scheme of service is legislation of very limited ambit, directed to the satisfaction of specific administrative needs. Its application is interwoven with the appreciation and proper satisfaction of those needs by the competent admi10 nistrative organ, in this case the Public Service Commission. For that reason, their interpretation is not a pure question of law buta matter of exercise of discretionary powers within the framework of the scheme of service. The provisions of theschemeof service define the limits ofthediscretion. Within 15 those limits, the Public Service Commission may construe them in any manner reasonably open to it. In fact, their interpretation need not necessarily be the most obvious one or, indeed, the one favoured by the Court 2 . The test is whether it transgresses the limits setby the wording of the law 20 as indicated bytheFull Benchofthe Supreme Court,in Republic v. Alexandros Aivaliotis
(1971)3 C.L.R. 713. Applying this test for the determination of the legality of the subjudice deci sion, the answer is, in my judgment, that the interpretation attached to thescheme ofservice bythe respondents was plainly 25 open to them. Not only it was open but, in my view, it was inescapable on a grammatical construction of its provision*; What was postulated, was service in a particular post and not experience of any kind. The construction placed upon the scheme by thePublic Service Commission was also consonant 30 with theobjects of the scheme intended tolaydown the prere quisites forpromotion,permissible unders.3u(l)(c)ofthe Public Service Law4, only from one grade to the one immediately above. The pertinent provision of the scheme, here under consideration, was designed to fashion the qualifications for 35 promotion tothe above reality, coupled with a stipulation that only service of a certain duration—five years—would give a 1 2 3 4 See,Pmkypriot Syntecknia DimosionYpallihnv. The Republic
(1978)3 C.L.R. 27; Vakis v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 952; Skourithuv. The Republic, delivered on 5.10.1984 (not yet reported)*. See, Der Parthogh, supra, p.
- See, aho, Papapetrou And The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C.,
- Law 33/
- 14169 Pikis J. Neopnytou v. Republic
(1984)right to promotion. If the argument of counsel for applicant were upheld, the scheme of service would have to be read as requiring— (
- a)holding the post of Assistant Veterinary Officer and, (
- b)experienceof akind normallyacquired byanAssistant Veterinary Officer in the government service. 5 A construction whollyincompatible with the provisions of the scheme. The recourse fails. It is dismissed accordingly. Let there be no order as to costs. 10 Recoursedismissedwith no order as to costs. 1470