1986 July 4 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., MALACHTOS, LORIS, STYLIANLDES, DEMCTRIADUS, JJ] IOANN1S PREZAS AND ANOTHER, Appellants (A pplicantsj, V. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Rcvisional Jurisdiction Appeal No. 491). 5 10 15 Executory act—Composite administrative action —Promotions— Decision not to interview candidates—it is in the circumstances of this case of an execu*ory nature—It ceased to he of such a nature upon the final outcome of the composite administrative action, that is the decision to promote other candidates. On 7.6.84 the respondent Commission decided to in'erview only about half the candida'es for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster secondary education and, as a result, the applicants were excluded from further consideration as candidates. The applican's challenged the said decision not to interview them by a recourse, which was eventually dismissed by a Judge of this Court on the ground that the decision lost its executory nature when the relevant promotions were made. Hence the present appeal. The respondent cross-appealed claiming tha* the sub judice decision was never of an executory, but of a preoaratory nature. 20 Held, dismissing both the appeal and cross-appeal. (11 In the light of the case law of this Court and 2525 the Prezas & Ano'.tiur j . Republic
(1986)special circumstances of this case the sub judice decision f was at the time i was taken of an executory nature.
(2)The bub jud'ce decision, which formed part of the relevant composite administrative action ceased to be of an executory nature upon the final outcome of such action that is ιhe decision to promo'e other candidates. The fact that the appellants did not challenge the final act of promotions makes no difference. Appeal and Cross-appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 5 K* tscs 'eferred loPopaNicolaou (No. I) ν The Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R. 225; Paparfopoulos v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1423; Papadopoulou ν The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 332; 11 Savxa v. The Republic
(1985)3 C.L R. 2288; Vasvliou v. The Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 417; Economidss v. The Republic
(1978)3 C.L.R. 230; .'ocuwoii v. Electricity Authoritv of Cyprus CLR.280.
(1981)3 20 ipeal and cross -appeal. Apnea' and cross-appeal against f he judgment of a d«r of 'he S u n r c n e Court of Cyp r us (Savv'des J.) given • the 9'h M;iv, 1985 (Rcvis ; cnal Jurisdict ; on Case N o . iVff4r d'smi^'ng appellants' recourse against the de.ion of *hc respondents not Ό interview the appellants as n d : ' b f s fW 'he post of Assistant Headmaster in seconiy : ; : h n t i o n . A. S. Angelides, /:. PapadopaulloH 25 for the appellants. (Mrs.), for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. Vr-orted in
(1985)3 C L R 1006 2526 30 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Prezas & Another v. Republic Triantafyllides P. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment of the Court. The appellants have appealed from the frst in stance judgment of a Judge of this Court by means of which there was dism'ssed their recourse (No. 335/84) against the decision of the respondent Educational Service Commission not to interview them as candidates for the post of As sistant Headmaster in secondary education. As was found by the learned trial Judge the respondent Commission decided, on the 7th June 1984, on the basis of certa'n criteria, to interview only about half the candi dates for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster in secondary education; and, as a result, the applicants were not interviewed and were, thus, excluded from further considerat:on as candidates. The trial Judge held that the aforesaid decision of the respondent Commission on the 7th June 1984 was at the time when it was taken an executory dec:sion but, as it was part of the composite administrative action leading up lo the promot:ons \vhich were eventually made to the post of Assistant Headmaster such decision had become divested of its executory nature when the said promotions were made and, consequently, the present recourse of the ap pellants against it had to be dismissed. On the other hand counsel for the respondent has crossappealed claiming that the decision of the Commission on the 7th June 1984 was never of an executory, but only of a preparatory, nature and could not. therefore, be at tacked by π recourse for annulment. In the light of case-law of ttvs Court such as PapaNicclaou (No. 1) v. The Republic,
(1968)3 C.L.R. 225, 232. Papadopoulos v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1423, 1426, Papadopoulou v. The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 332, 337 and Savva v. The Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 2288, 2290, and on the basis of the particular circumstances of this case, we are not prepared to disagree w ! th the trial Jud.ae that the decision of the respondent Commission, on the 7 June, 1984, not to interview some of the candidates, ; among whom were the two appellants, was at the t me an executory decision, but we would like to point out that 2527 Triantafyllides P. Prezcs & Another v. Republic {1986) it is conceivable that in a different set of circumstances the preliminary consideration of candidates might be found to be of only preparatory nature and, thus, not executory. In any event, once the process of making the promotions in question culminated into a decis:on of the respondent 5 Commission to promote candidates other than the appellants, we are of the opinion that the trial Judge rightly held that the only decision of the respondent Commission which could have been challenged as being executory was the fnal outcome of the composite administrative action, 10 that is the decision to promote other candidates, and that the earlier decision of the Commission, on the 7th June 1984. which formed part of such composite administrative action had ceased *o be of an executory nature. Useful reference, in this respect, may be made to case-law of this 15 Court such as PapaNicolaou (No. I), supra, Vassiliou v. The Republic,
(1969)3 C.L.R. 417, 425, Economides v. The Republic,
(1978)3 C.L.R. 230, 235 and loannou v. The Electricity Authority of Cyprus,
(1981)3 C.L.R.
- 20 In concluding we would like to observe that the aforesaid decision of the 7th June 1984 has ceased to be executory notwithstanding the fact that the appellants for reasons of their own chose not to challenge the final decision of the respondent Commiss;on to promote other candidates. In the light of all the foregoing this appeal fails and has to be dismissed; but with no order as to its costs. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. 2.^28 25