1983 March 22 [TRIANTAFYLUDES, P., HADJIANASTASSIOU, A. Loizou, DEMETRIADES, LORIS, PIKIS, JJ.] IOANNIS VRYONIDES, Appellant. v. THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER, Respondents. (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 259). 5 Educational Officers—Schemes of service—Construction and application by the competent for the purpose administrativeorgan— Judicial control—Principles applicable—Reasonably open to the respondent to find that the M.I.I. qualificationwas noteqttivalent to a University degree. 10 Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Court iannot go into the merits of anadministrativedecisionregarding a matter of technical nature so long as such decision was reached in the course of exercise, within proper limits, of the relevantpowers of the appropriate organ. Costs—Recourse for annulment—Warning that in future costs will be awarded against unsuccessful applicant or appellant. 15 20 The respondent Commission having adopted an opinion of the Evaluation of Qualifications Committee of the Ministry of Education to the effect that the appellant was not qualified, under the relevant scheme of service, for emplacement on salary scale BIO as a schoolmaster teaching foreign languages, because the fact that he was a Member of the Institute of Linguists (M.I.L.) in England was not considered as being a qualification equivalent to a university degree or title, as required by the relevant scheme of service rejected his request for emplacement on salary scale B.IO. 1567 Vryonides τ. Republic
(1984)The trial Court dismissed his recourse, which was directed against the above decision; and hence this appeal. Held, that this Court, as an administrative Court, willnot interfere with theconstruction andapplication of a schemeof service by thecompetentfor that purpose administrative organ 5 if such construction and application was reasonably open to that organ inthecircumstances of the particular case; thatin the present case itwasreasonably opentothe respondentCommision to find that theM.I.L.qualification oftheappellantwas not a qualification of an equivalent nature to those envisaged 10 by the relevant scheme of service. Held,further, that the possibility of judicial intervention in a case such asthepresent <mt isfurther limited bytheprinciple that this Court cannot go into themerits of an administrative decision regarding a matter oftechnical nature so long as such 15 decision wasreached inthecourse ofthe exercise, within proper limits, of the relevant powers of theappropriate organ. Warningtotheeffect thatinfuturecosts willbeawardedagainst anunsuccessfulapplicant orappellant because most ofthe relevant principleson Administrative Lawhaveby nowbeenexpounded 20 both adequately andclearly and, thus,litigants should be ina position toknowwhen it isprobable that arecourse oran appeal is likely to succeed. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: 25 Paraskevopoullou v. Republic
(1971)3 C.L.R. 426 at p,432; Lambrakisv. Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 29at p. 33; Georghiou v. Municipality of Nicosia
(1973)3 C.L.R. 53. Appeal. Appeal against the judgment of a Judge of the Supreme 30 Court of Cyprus (Malachtos, J.) given on the 5th December, 1981 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 28/75)* whereby his recourse against the refusal of the respondents to emplace him on salary scale B.10 was dismissed. • Reported in
(1981)3 C.L.R. 540. 1568 3 CX.R. Vryoaldes τ. Republic L.. Papaphilippou,for the appellant. A.S. Angelides, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLUDES p. read the following judgment of the Court. In the present instance the appellant complains against a decision of the respondent Educational Service Commission which was communicatedtohim by a letterdated28th February 1975 and by means of which his. request to be emplaced, on the strength of the relevant scheme of service, on salary scale 10 B.10 was turned down. 5 In its said letter of the 28th Feburary 1975 the respondent Commission sets out at length and adopts an opinion of the Evaluation of Qualifications Committeeof theMinistryof Edu cation; and on thebasis of such opinion the Commission found 15 that the appellant was not qualified, under the relevant scheme of service, for emplacement on salary scale BIO as a school master teaching foreign languages, because the fact that the appellant was a Member of the Institute of Linguists (Μ.ΪΧ.) in England was notconsidered as being a qualification equivalent 20 to a university degree or title, as required by the relevant scheme of service. Thetrial Judge who heardthis case in thefirstinstance found thattherewas noreason to interfere with thesub judice decision of the respondent Commission. 25 It has been repeatedly stressed that this Court, as an admi nistrative Court, will not interfere with the construction and application of a scheme of service by the competent for that purpose administrative organ if such construction and appli cation was reasonably open to that organ in the circumstances 30 of the particular case (see, in this respect, inter alia,Paraskevo poullouv. TheRepublican) 3C.L.R.426,432 and Lambrakis v. The Republic,
(1973)\3 C.L.R. 29, 33); and we do find that in the present case it was reasonably open to the respondent Commission tofindthatthe M.I.L.qualification of the appellant 35 was not a qualification of an equivalent nature to those envi saged by the relevant scheme of service. Moreover, the possibility of judicial intervention in a case such as the present one is further limited by the principle that 1569 Triantafyllides P. Vryonides ?. Republic (I9S4) thisCourtcannotgointothemeritsofanadministrativedecision regarding a matter of technical nature so long assuch decision was reached in the course of the exercise, within proper limits, of the relevant powers of the appropriate organ (see, in this respect, inter alia, Georghiou v. The Municipality of Nicosia, 5
(1973)3 C.L.R. 53). For all the foregoing reasonsthis appeal'hasto bedismissed. It is true that the trial Judge did not make any order as to costs against the appellant when he dismissed in the first instance his recourse. Wehave, however, as time passes, come 10 to hold the viewthat most of the relevant principles onAdmiinstrative Law have by now been expounded both adequately and clearly and, thus,litigantsshould bein a position to know when it is probable that a recourse or an appeal is likely to succeed. So, we became inclined, in dismissing an appeal 15 whichdid notappear tohaveareasonablechanceofsucceeding, to make an order of costs against the appellant. Wewill,for yet another time,not make an order of costsin dismissingthisappeal;butwedoexpectthatourabovewarning asto thecourseto betaken byusinfuture willbewellheeded. 20 Appealdismissedwith noorder as to costs. 1570