(1985) 1985 September 4 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION 1. PHRINI PAPADOPOULOU, 2. ALIKI FEREOU, Applicants, v. THE CYPRUS BOADCASTING CORPORATION THROUGH 1. THE
Article 146
.2 of the Constitution to pursue this recourse against their appointmeat on scale A8/9. Further and as the matter of. their retrospective appointment had been raised before their apointment, the fact that they freely and unreservedly accepted their appointment as from 1.2.83 deprives the applicants to pursue by this recourse this matter.
(2)The failure of the respondents to reply to applicants letter of the 8.4.83 implies a refusal to accede to applicants request made subsequently to their appointment for equal treatment with their nude counterparts. A victim of alleged discrimination can specifically claim to have redress. The applicants' complaint is that subsequently to their appointment they were not accorded equal treatment with their male counterparts. Prima facie the applicants possess a legitimate interest to pursue in this respect the recourse. 20 Recourse dismissedin part. Cases referred to: Tomboli v. CY.T.A.
(1980)3 C.L.R. 266 and on appeal
(1982)3 C.L.R. 149; 25 HjiConstantinou v. The Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 184 and on appeal
(1984)3 C.L.R. 319; Vlahou v. TheRepublic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1319; Michaelides v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1419; Ayoub v. TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 70; Kalos v. The Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 135; 30 Demetriou Dairy Products v. The Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 758. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to appoint applicants as Announcers/Newsreaders (Radio and 35 Television) with salary scale A8/9 instead of salary scale 227^ Papadopoulou and Another v. C.B.C. (1985} AlO and against the refusal of the respondents to emplace applicants on scale AlO. K. Talarides, for the applicants. P. Polyviou, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLTDES P. read the following decision. The applicants complain, in effect, against their appointments, as from the 1st February 1983, as Announcers/Newsreaders (Radio and Television) with salary scale A8/9, instead of with salary scale AlO, and they, also, complain against the 10 refusal of the respondents to emplace them in the said scale AlO in which there have been emplaced their male counterparts. A central issue in this case has been whether or not by accepting offers of appointment to the post in question 15 with salary scale A8/9 the applicants have divested themselves of their legitimate interest,
Article 146.2 of the Constitution, which would entitle them to file their present recourse.
The said offers of appointment were made in writing, to 20 each one of the applicants separately, on the 21st February 1983, and it was stated clearly in them that the salary scale of the post was A8/9. The applicants replied by letters dated 16th March 1983 and 17th March 1983, respectively, stating that they 25 accepted their appointments on the terms set out in the said offers. Having considered the contents of the aforementioned documents and, also, all the other relevant circumstances of this case as they emerge from the material before me, 30 I am satisfied that the acceptance of the aforesaid appointments by the applicants was unreserved and free and, therefore, by such acceptance they have been deprived of legitimate interest,
Article 146
.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to file their present recouse 35 against the sub judice decision of the respondents to appoint 2276 5 3 C.L.R. Papadopoulou and Another v. C.B.C. TrlantafyHides P. them with salary scale A8/9 (see, inter alia, in this respect, Tompoli v. The Cyprus Telecommunications Authority.
(1980)3 C.L.R. 266 and, on appeal
(1982)3 C.L.R. 149, HadjiConstantinou v. The Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 184 ΐ 5 and, on appeal
(1984)3 C.L.R. 319, Vlahou v. The Re public,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1319, Michaelides v. The Republic.
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1419, Ayoub v. Tlte Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 70, Kalos v. The Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 135. and Demetriou Dairy Products v. The Republic,
(1985)10 3 C.L.R. 758). In the light of the foregoing, therefore, this recourse has to be dismissed as regards the complaint of the applicants that they have been appointed with salary scale A8/9, and not with scale AlO. 15 20 25 30 35 After, however, .their said appointments the applicants, by a letter dated 8th April 1983 to which no written reply has been given, asked for their appointments to be made retrospective at the latest as from the 31st December 1981 and, in any event, for emplacement on scale AlO in order to be accorded equal treatment with their male counter parts, who had been emplaced on scale A
- As regards the applicants' claim for retrospective appoint ments it seems that this matter had, indeed, been raised by them at the end of
- They cannot, however, complain now about the fact that their appointments were not made retrospective to a date earlier than the 1st February
- when such appointments commenced, because by having accepted, as' aforesaid, their said appointments without any reservation to claim that they should be made retrospective to an earlier date they must be treated as having been deprived of a legitimate interest,
Arti cle 146.2 of the Constitution, entitling them to file the present recourse against the non-retrospectivity of their appointments. As regards, however, the applicants' complaint that, on the ground of sex, contrary to Article 28 of the Constitu tion, they have not been accorded, subsequently to their appointments, equal treatment with their ^male counterparts who were appointed with scale A10, I am of the view that 2277 Trtantafytlldes P. Papadopoutou and Another v. C.B.C.
(1986)a victim of alleged discrimination on the ground of sex, or on any other ground, contrary to Article 28, can specifically claim to have redress in this respect; and, consequently, as at present advised, I am prepared to find, prima facie, that the applicants have not been deprived of a S legitimate interest,
Article 146
.2 of the Constitution, to challenge, by their present recourse, the refusal of the respondents to emplace them, subsequent to their appointments, on scale AlO on which their male counterparts had been emplaced; and such refusal is implied 10 from the failure of the respondents to reply to the applicants' claim in this respect which was put forward by the aforementioned letter of the 8th April 1983. Order accordingly. 2278