← Κύπρος

clr/1986/1986_3_418.pdf

(1986)I9S6 January 17 [STVLIANIDES. J.j IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION ANTON'IS MELETIS AND OTHERS. Applicants, v.
  1. THE CYPRUS PORTS AUTHORITY AND'OR
  2. THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, Respondents. (Cases Nos. 103/83 ami 104/
  3. The Cyprus Ports Authority·—Promotions—Scheme of Service— Acts of a legislative nature—Constitute' delegated legislation —Ultra vires—Issue depends on true construction of enabling enactment—Vested rights—Meaning of—Protection of —Distinguished from a mere expectation—Promotions— There is no such vested right as a right to promotion or a right that the required qualifications for a post will not be changed—Eligibility for promotion—An officer is not, entitled to promotion simply because he acquired the required qualifications. 5 10 Constitutional Law—Constitution, Article 28.
  4. Legitimate Interest—Existence of<—May be examined Court e.x propria motu. by the The Cyprus Ports Organisation Law 38/73, ss. 19
(2)and 35— The Cyprus Ports Authority (Increase of Salaries and Restructure of Salary Scales of Officers) Regulations 1982 and the Cyprus Ports Authority (Schemes and Other Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations
  1. 15 The interested parties, who entered Government service on various dates between 1.11.65 and 20.5.74, were on 20 1.10.77 transferred to and/or appointed by the Cyprus Por's Authority pursuant to the provisions of s. 35 of the 418 3 C.L.R. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A. Cyprus Ports Organisation Law 38/73 in the post of Pons Officer, 2nd Grade. The applicants in Case 103/83 were first appointed to Government Service as Customs Store Officers, 2nd Grade. between 11.10.76-13.12.76 and the applicants in Case 104/83 as Customs Store Guards on daily wages between 19.7.76-21.3.
  2. On 1.4.79 all applicants were transfered to the service of the said Authority. The applicants in Case 103/83 were emplaced in the post of Ports Officer, 2nd Grade and the applicants in Case 104/
  3. in the post of Ports Officer, 3rd Grade. Tn 1982 after a long process of negotiations with the unions, two sets of regulations were made: The Cyprus Ports Authority (Increase of Salaries and Restructure of Salary Scales of Officers) Regulations 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as Κ.Δ.Π. 316) and the Cyprus Ports Au­ thority (Schemes and Other Conditions of Service of Officers) Regulations 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as Κ.Δ-Π- 317). The interested parties and the applicants in Case No. 103/83 were promoted to Ports Officers. 1st Grade, and immediately thereafter the interested parties were promoted with effect from 2.1.83 to Senior Ports Officers. The appli­ cants in Case No. 104/83 were made Ports Officers. 2nd Grade, with effect from 1.1.83 in virtue of Regulation 5 of Κ.Δ.Π 316/
  4. The required qualifications for the post of Senior Ports Officer were set out in the Cyprus Ports Authority (Con­ ditions of service of Officers) Regulation 1075-1976 (Κ.Δ-Π. 207/76). These qualifications were amended on 78.7.78 bv Κ.Δ.Π. 136/78* Κ.Δ.Π. 317/82 introduced a new scheme of service**. By means of the present recourses the applicants challenge the promotion of the interested parties to the post of Senior Ports Officer, the refusal or failure to pro­ mote the applicants to the said post and the validity of the * See for the contents of such scheme of servic.1 <i: amendr.l p. 427 post. * * See for the contents of such new scheme of service p. 428 post. 419 Meletls end Others v. C.P.A.
(1986)alteration of the scheme of service for the said post. Counsel for the applicants contended that the regulations Κ.Δ.Π. 317/82 are ultra vires; they infringe their vested right for promotion; they are repugnant to the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution; they are the product of abuse of power and they violate the principles of proper administration. 5 Held, dismissingthe recourses:
(1)Schemes of service are acts of legislative nature, and not acts of executory or administrative nature. They constitute delegated legislation 10 and. therefore, they must -be intra vires the enabling sta­ tute. Delegated legislation may be challenged for substan­ tive ultra vires, that is, on the ground that it goes beyond the powers granted by the legislature. The question depends in every case on the true construction of the enabling 15 enactment. In this case the enabling enactment is s. 19
(2)* of the Cyprus Ports Authority Law. No one has a vested right in the existing schemes of service, unless an abuse of power in the sense of the Law is established. The enabling enactment does not limit the rule making power in the way counsel for the applicants submitted namely that as the initial structure of the services of the Authority was not changed, there was no need to replace the scheme of service with new ones. A collective agreement by itself does not create a right in public law, but in the present case we are concerned with a piece of delegated legislation, and not with a col­ lective agreement. Having regard to the wording of s. 19
(2)the scheme in question is within the four corners of the enabling enactment. 20 25 30
(2)Every officer has a right of prospect of promotion. The vested right of an officer is protected by law. Such a right is one given by law and the protection afforded to it is that the recognised legal state cannot be changed to 35 the detriment of the person having it, without his consent. But a vested right must not be confused with a mere ex* Quoted at p. 429 post. 420 3 C.L.R. Mefetis and Others v. C.P.A. pectation of a citizen. There is no such vested right as a right to promotion or that the required qualification for a post will not be changed.
(3)The applicants in Case 103/83 became eligible for promotion to the post of Ports Officer, 1st Grade, on 1.4.82. But it cannot be validly said that an officer is entitled to promotion, upon acquiring the required qualifications. The structure of the service, the needs of the service and other materia! considerations have to be weighed before deciding whether promotion should be made or not. Therefore, the argument that if the applicants hnd been promoted to the said post on 1.4.82 their position would have been different does not help the applicants. Indeed it cannot be validly argued that the Authority deliberately did not promote the applicants on 1.4.82 for the purpose of bringing into operation the new scheme on 30.12.82.
(4)The principle of equality has not been infringed by the challenged scheme and the sub judicc promotions. The interested parties had a longer service in the Public Service and in the service of the Authority than the applicants. They were further safeguarded by the provisions of s. 35 of the Law, The difference between the two group?—the interested parties and the applicants—is more than ohviou-' The applicants received a treatment which is not discriminatory at all. Neither the regulations nor the treatment of the applicants and the interested parties is or savour^ discrimination.
(5)The existence of the applicants' legitimate interesi. even if not raised, may be examined by the Court cx-proprio motu. As the applicants do not possess the required qualification for their promotion lo the post of Senior Ports Officer, they do not have a legitimate interest to challenge the sub iudice promotions. Recourses dismissed. No order as to co\ts. Cases referred to: Christodoulou v. The Republic, 1 R.S.C.C. I; 421 Meletis and Others v. C.P.A.
(1986)Spyrou and Others v. The Republic
(1973)3 C.L.R. 627; Apostolou and Others v. The Republic 509;
(1984)3 C.L.R. Police v. Hondrou and Another, 3 R.S.C.C. 82: Papapetrou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 6 1 ; PA.SY.D.Y. 5 v. The Republic
(1978)3 C.L.R. 34; loannou v. Electricity Authority
(1981)3 C.L.R. 280; Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Cure and Deeley Ltd. [1962] 1 Q.B.D. 340; Papaxenophonios and Others v. The Republic C.L.R. 1037;
(1982)3 10 Miamiliotis and Another v. 77u? Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 322; 15 Piperis v. The Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 295; Economides v. The Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 506; Leontiou v. T/ie Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 221; v. ΓΛ« Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 280; HadjiChristoforou Papadopoulos and C.L.R. 1126; Others v. TAe Republic
(1984)3 Alexandrou and Others v. 77ie Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 15; 20 Philippou v. 7Vie Republic, 4 R.S.C.C. 139; Panayides v. 77ie Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 135; Sofocleous (No. 2) v. 77w Republic
(1972)3 C.L.R. 637; Papaskevopoulou v. Tfte Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 647; Constantinidou v. 77ie Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R.
  1. Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondents to pro­ mote the interested parties to the post of Senior Ports Of- 422 25 3 C.L.R. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A. ficer in the Cyprus Ports Authority in preference and instead of the applicants, the refusal or failure to promote the applicants to the said post and the alteration of the scheme of service relating to such post. 5 A. S. Angelides, for the applicants. P. Joannides, for the respondent No.
  2. A. Vassiliades, for the the respondent No.
  3. Cur. adv. vult. STVLIANIDES J. read the-following judgment. The prayer in these two recourses is identical. The applicants challenge the validity of the promotion of the interested parties to the post of Senior Ports Officer. They further pray for declaration that the failure and/or refusal of respondents No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") to promote the 15 applicants to the post of Senior Ports Officer is void and of no effect and that the alteration of the scheme of service made by the Authority and approved by respondents No. 2, the Council of Ministers, is contrary to law and void. 10 20 From the very first year of the British Administration the ports and harbours of the country, their functioning, management and exploitation were within the exclusive power of the State—(See, inter alia, the Port Regulation Law, 1879 (Law No. 19 of 1879) and the Customs & Excise Regulation Law, 1879 (Law No. 24 of 1879)). 25 The Department of Ports (Regulation and Transfer of Powers) Law, 1968 (Law No. 55 of 1968) provided that there would continue to exist in the Ministry of Transport and Public Works a Department of Ports for the purpose of the supervision, administration and regulation of the ope· 30 ration of ports in the Republic and every subject relating to them as well as every matter referring to Merchant Shipping and Seamen in accordance with the provisions in force from time to time of any law or administrative act relating to ports or.to such matters. This transfer of power 35 was retrospective as from 16.8.60, obviously to fill a legislative gap which existed by the separation of Customs and Port Services as from that time. 423 Stvlianides J. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A. {1986} Following an agreement of the Republic with the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic on 19.9.69 under Notification No. 748, the Cyprus Ports Organisation Law, 1973 (Law No. 38 of 1973) was enacted. By the said 5 Law the "Cyprus Ports Organisation" was established. It was renamed to "Cyprus Ports Authority" by Law No. 59 of
  4. The Authority is a corporation of public law, the object of which is to manage and exploit the ports in the Republic 10 and to undertake and manage the existing ports with all their assets and liabilities—(Section 4). It is the body set up by the State to exercise its powers and perform its responsibilities respecting the ports and harbours of the country, though considerable control was retained by the State. 15 Law No. 38/73 was promulgated and published in the Official Gazette on 22.6.
  5. As a rather long process for the implementation of the Law was necessary, s. 39 thereof provided that the Law shall come into force on a date to be fixed by the Council of Ministers, and the Council may 20 fix different dates for the coming into operation of different parts or provisions of this Law. The Authority took over the functions and duties of Government departments, mainly the Department of Ports and partly the Department of Customs; it was only natural that the public officers serving 25 in the respective department would be transferred to the Authority. Section 18 provided for the appointment of a General Manager. By s. 19
(1)the Authority is empowered to cmploy such officers as may be necessary for the discharge of 30 its functions. Section 35 came into force on 1.10.77 by Notification No. 214/77. It reads:"35.-
(1)Without prejudice to the provisions of section 18, any public officer who, immediately before 35 the date of the coming into force of this Law, was serving in the Department of Ports of the Ministry of Communications and Works, shall be transferred, as from that date, to the service of the Authority and is 424 3 C.L.R. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A. Stylianides J. emplaced by it, in so far as this is practically possible, in a post the functions of which are analogous to the functions of the post held by him in the public service of the Republic: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Provided that any such public officer may, either within one month from the date of such transfer, or after such transfer, within one month from the communication to him of the conditions of service of the relevant post and the initial structure of the services of the Authority, by notice in writing given by him to the Authority, state that he does not wish such employment with the Authority, whereupon he shall cease to be in the service of the Authority after the lapse of a period of six months from the date on which the notice was given, and in such a case he shall be entitled to such retirement benefits to which he would have been entitled if he had retired from the public service of the Republic by virtue of the provisions of the Pensions Law then in force which are applicable to him.
(2)The service of such public officer with the Authority shall be deemed to be a continuation of his service in the public service of the Republic without any break and his remuneration and other conditions of his service with the Authority cannot be altered to his disadvantage during the continuation of his service with the Authority. For the purposes of this sub-section, "conditions of service" include matters concerning leave, dismissal or retirement, pension, additional grants or other similar allowances: Provided that the Republic shall remain responsible in respect of pension or other retirement benefits, if any, until the date of the transfer of the public officer to the service of the Authority, and the Authority shall be responsible in respect thereof after that date and until the date of the retirement of such officer from the service of the Authority.
(3)Subject to any internal regulations 425 or instruc- Stylianides J. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A.
(1986)tions of the Authority, any public officer transferred to the service of the Authority by virtue of this section shall, during his service with the Authority be entitled to all rights and benefits and be subject to all respon­ sibilities and duties of public officers in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Law. 1967. or any other law amending or substituted for the same. s
(4)Nothing in this section contained shall apply to any other officer of the Authority, except those re­ ferred to in sub-section
(1)". Paragraph 4 was repealed and substituted by s. 3 of Law No. 28/79 so as to make applicable the provisions of para­ graphs 2 and 3 to all officers transferred to or appointed by the Authority on 1.10.77 who immediately before such transfer or appointment were serving on a temporary daily basis in the Department of Ports of the Ministry of Com­ munications and Works or were holding an organic office or were serving on temporary daily basis in the Customs Stores. I(t 15 The interested parties entered the Government service on various dates between 1.11.65-20.5.74—(See Schedule attached to the opposition). Thirteen of them were serving at the Customs Stores (Nos. 1-9 and 11-14) and two at the Department of Ports (Nos. 10 and 15). On 1.10.77 all the interested parties were transferred to and/or appointed by the Authority and emplaced in the post of Ports Officer, 2nd Grade, Post 22 in the Cyprus Ports Authority (Condi­ tions of Service of Officers) Regulations* 1975-1976 (See Κ.Δ.Π. 207 published in the Official Gazette 1306 of 15,10.66, Supplement No. Ill) made in virtue of s. 19
(2)of the Law. The applicants in Case No. 103/83 were first appointed in the Government service as Customs Store Officers, 2nd Grade, between 11.10.76-13.12.76 and the applicants in Case No. 104/83 as Customs Store Guards on daily wages 35 between 1-9.7.76-21.3.
  1. On 1.4.79 all the applicants were transferred to the service of the Authority. The ap­ plicants in Case No. 103/83 were emplaced in the post of Ports Officer, 2nd Grade, and the applicants in Case No. 104/83 in the post of Ports Officer, 3rd Grade. 40 426 3 C L R. 5 10 15 20 25 Meletts and Others J C ΡA Stylianides J In 1982, afte» serious suid\. a long process of negotia­ tions with the unions and consultations as it appears from the material betoie the Court, two sets ot regulations weie made The C>prus Ports Authon') (Increase ot Sa>aries and Restructure of Salai\ Scales of Ofticers) Regulations. 19S2 and the C>pius Pons Authority (Schemes ?nd Other Con­ ditions ot Seivice of Offsets) Rtfiliation*. 1°S2 They were published in Supplement No III tf the Oliicial Gazette of the Republic No 1826 ot i0 12.82 a·, Notifications No τ 16 and 3 1 7 iesrectively (hereinafter to be referred to as "Κ Δ Π 116" and Κ Δ Π
  2. respecmely) The interested parties and the applicants in Case No 103/83 were promoted to Poits Officers 1st Grade and immediately theieafter the interested partres weie piomotui with effect from 2 1 83 to Senior Ports Officers The apph cants m Case No 104/83 were mide Ports OK-cers 2nd Grade with effect from 1 1 83 in unite of Regulation 5 of ΚΔΠ 316/
  3. The required qualifications tor the post ot Semoi Ports Officer undei the scheme of service in operation until 30 12 1982 are set out under No 20 in the C\pri>s Pons Au thonty (Conditions ot Sen ice ot Officers) Regulation 1975
  4. ΚΔΠ 207/76 The\ are as amended b\ Κ Δ Π Π 6 ' 7 8 on 28.7.78: (a) Leavng ceuittcate ot leeogmzed Seconda'y Educa tion school, (b) At least 5 yeats' satisfauoiv service in the post ot Ports Officer 1st Grade. 30 35 (c"i Successful completion ot any course that may be fixed b\ the Authority and or success ip any cxa ruination that ma\ be held by the Authority cu It is piouded fuither that public officers sprung m ttu Department of Ports ot the Ministry ot Communications and Works or at the Customs Stores which sh ill be taken over by the Authonrj. in an office, the functions of whir!1 are analogous to 'he present post, will be deemed that they possess the reamred qiul'fications for the purpose ot thci transfer to the Authorm Certainh. this prousion was in­ serted in compliance with and or implementation ot the 427 Stylianides J. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A. safeguards to the civil servants provided by Law hereinabove quoted. s. 35
(1986)of the The qualifications required for the post of Senior Ports Officer under the new scheme of service, as set out in Κ.Δ.Π. 317/82 (Post 24, page 1360), are at least 5 years' service in the office of Ports Officer. 1st Grade, etc. It is noted in the scheme of service that for the first 5 years after the approval of the new regulation, if there are no candidates with 5 years' service :n the office of Ports Of­ ficer, 1st Grade, officers with the following service may be promoted:
  1. fa)Officers with three years' service in the office Ports Officer, 1st Grade; and (
  2. b)(
  3. i)5 10 of Officers with 8 years' experience in the Au­ thority/in the former Government Department of Ports/in the Department of Customs, out of which at least 5 years' total service in the office of Ports Officer, 1st Grade, and the former office of Ports Officer. 2nd Grade; 15 -or - 20 (
  4. ii)Officers with 6 years' total service in the offices of Ports Officers. 1st Grade, 2nd Grade and 3rd Grade. It may be usefully said that the post of Ports Officer, 3rd Grade, was abolished by Κ.Δ.Π. 316 and special provision was made for the salary scale of those ho'ding that post who were not school leavers of a secondary education school; the offices of Ports Officer, 2nd Grade, and 1st Grade were combined. Counsel for the applicants contended that the regulations Κ.Δ.Π. 317/82 are ultra vires; they infringe their vested right for promotion; they arc repugnant to the principle of equality as enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution; they are the product of abuse of power and they violate the prin­ ciples of proper administration. Counsel for the Authority contested the right of the applicants to resort to the administrative Court under Article 146 of the Constitution as they lack legitimate interest, and he refuted all argumentation of counsel of the applicants. 428 25 30 35 3 C.L.R. Meletis and Others u. C.P.A. Stylianides J. Counsel for the Council of Ministers submitted that the challenged regulations, approved by the Council of Ministers, are a legislative act and not an executory administrative act that may be challenged under Article 146 of the 5 Constitution. A sub judice decision is declared null and void and of no effect by the Court if it was based on an invalid enactment—(Christodoulou v. The Republic. 1 R.S.C.C. I; Spyrott and Others v. The Republic,
(1973)3 C.L.R. 627; 10 Costakis Apostolou and Others v. The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 509). 15 The schemes of service are acts of legislative nature and not acts of executory or administrative nature. Schemes of service constitute delegated legislation in the sense of Police v. Hondrou and Another, 3 R.S.C.C. 82—Papapetrou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 61; PASYDY v. The Republic,
(1978)3 C.L.R. 34: loannou v. Electricity Authority,
(1981)3 C.L.R. 280, 295). Delegated legislation must be intra vires the enabling 20 statute. Delegated legislation may be chaiicnged for substantive ultra vires, that is, on the ground that it goes beyond the powers granted by the legislature—(Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Cure and Deeley Ltd., f1962] 1 Q.B.D. 340; Papaxenophonios and Others v. The Republic, 25
(1982)3 C.L.R. 1037). When subsidiary legislation is examined with a view to determining whether it is intra or ultra vires, the answer to the question depends in even.' case on the true construction of the enabling enactment. The challenged regulations were made under s.l9
(2)oC 30 the Cyprus Ports Authority Law that reads:- 35 40 "
(2)The Authority shall, with the approval of the Council of Ministers, make regulations relating to the conditions of service of its officers and in particular relating to the appointment, promotion, dismissal. leave, medical and social benefits, remuneration, superannuation and other benefits and gratuities, discipline and the right of recourse by way of administrative review in case of dismissal or the taking of other disciplinary measures." Subsect:on
(3)provides that with regard to the initial 429 Stylianides J. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A.
(1936)structure of the services of the Authority, the Authority shail, subject to the provisions of sub-section
(2), draw up within four months from date of the coming into force of this Law α plan for the structure of its services Together with the relevant schemes of .service for the posts referred to in such plan. Section 19 came into force 181/75). on IS.9.75—(See > Κ.ΔΠ. It was argued by counsel for the applicants that as the initial structure of the services of the Authority was not 10 changed, there was no need to replace the scheme of service with new ones and, therefore, the provisions of Sub­ section
(2)could not be validly used. With respect. I find no merit at all in this submission. The Authority, with the approval of the Council of Ministers, was empowered, without 15 any such limitation alleged by counsel for the applicants, to make regulations relating to the conditions of service of its officers, including appointment and promotion. A scheme of service may be altered for the efficiency and proper functioning of the services of the Authority. The 20 functions of the Authority are better carried out and the interests of the citizens are better served by qualified, experienced and efficient servants and it is uplo the Authority to determine the required Qualifications for the promotion of officers in order to achieve, inter alia, the 25 aforesaid object. No one has a vested right in the existing schemes of service unless an abuse of power in the sense of the Law is established. It was further argued that the new scheme of service for the post of Senior Ports Officer was the result of negoiia- 30 tions and/or a collective agreement with the Trade Unions. It is correct that a collective agreement by itself does not create a right in public law but in the present case we are not concerned with a collective or any agreement but with a piece of delegated legislation. 35 Having regard to the wording of s.19
(2)and the contents of the attacked regulations, without hesitation Τ hold that they are within the four corners of the enabling enactment. The regulations are not ultra vires. Every officer has a right of prospect of promotion. His 430 40 3 C.L.R. Meletis. and Others v. C.P.A. Stylianides J. advancement is an incentive in the belter carrying out of his duties. The vested right of an officer is protected by law. Such a right is one given by law and the protection afforded toΚ is that the recognised legal state cannot be changed to the 5 detriment of the person having it. without his consent; but the vested right must not be confused with a mere expecta­ tion of the citizen—(Kyriacopouhs, Greek Administrative Law, Volume 1, 4th Edition, p. 95). It may be said here thai there is no such vested right as a right to promotion or 10 that the required qualification for a particular promotion post will not be changed before any promotion is effected. There is an expectation for it and nothing more—(Piperis v. The Republic,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 295; Economides v. The. Republic.
(1972)3 C.L.R. 506. 520; Leontiou v. The 15 Republic.
(1983)3 C.L.R. 221, 225; Miamiliotis and Another v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 322; HadjiChristoforou v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 280; Papadopouhs and Others v. The Republic, '
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1126; Alexandrou and Others v. The Republic.
(1984)20 3 C.L.R. 15). The applicants in Case No. 103./83 became eligible for promotion to the post of Ports Officer, 1st Grade, on 1.4.82. It, goes, however, without saying that the interested parties were so elig:ble a long time earlier. It cannot validly be 25 said that any officer on acquiring the service requirements for promotion, irrespective of the existence of posts, he is entitled to promotion. The structure of the service, tfic needs of the service and other material considerations have to be weighed before deciding whether promotion should 30 he made or not. 35 40 By the challenged regulations and the sub judice promo­ tions of the interested parties the principle of equality was not at all infringed. The interested parties had a longer service in the Public Service and in the service of the Authority than the applicants. They were further safeguarded by the provisions of s.35 of the Law. The difference between the two groups—the interested parties and the applicants—is more than obvious. The applicants received a treatment which is not discriminatory at all. Neither the regulations nor the treatment of the applicants and the interested parties is or savours discrimination. Counsel for the applicants strenuously and more than once 431 Stylianides J. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A.
(1986)referred to a letter of the Authority addressed to him on behalf of the Authority on 23.11.
  1. He was thereby in­ formed that the new schemes of service were being made after an agreement for restructure of the offices within the framework of the needs of the service and with full consultation with the Unions of the officers and that the rights of the officers of the Authority, including the rights of his clients, for elevation in the service: so long as they satisfied the requirements if general application, were not affected. 5 I am unable to see how the contents of this letter arc 10 in any way faulty. It does not carry the case of the appli­ cants any further. If the applicants do not satisfy the re­ quirements of general application set down in the regula­ tions—scheme of service—in the circumstances of the pre­ sent case neither the regulations nor the promoting Au- 15 thority are to be blamed in any way. The argument for abuse of power was based on the ground that if the applicants were promoted on 1.4.82— the very first day that they acquired the service qualifica­ tion required under the old scheme of service—to the immediately higher post of Ports Officer, 1st Grade, their position would have been different. 20 Τ have earlier referred to the position of the applicants and the interested parties with regard to this matter. I need not repeat that no officer has a right of promotion for the 25 «imple reason that he acquires the qualifications for promo­ tion. Many other factors have to be considered before a promotion is made. It cannot be validly argued that the Authority deliberated did not promote the applicants on t.4.82 for the purpose of bringing into operation the new 30 schemes of service on 30th December,
  2. and this is established from all the material before me. After all, the interested parties qualified for promotion long before ths applicants. The new scheme of service does not create unequa 1 treatment between the applicants and the interested 35 parties. For any officer to be eligible for promotion to a post. he must possess at the material time the qualifications re­ quired by the scheme of service. A recourse under Article 146 may be made by a person 432 40 3 C.L.R. Meletis and Others v. C.P.A. Stylianides J. whose any existing legitimate interest is adversely and directly affected by such decision or act or omission. The legitimate interest must exist at the time of filing of the recourse and upto the determination of the case. An officer, 5 who is not qualified under the scheme of service for promotion, has no "legitimate interest" in the sense of paragraph 2 of Article 146—(Anastassios Philippou v. The Republic, 4 R.S.C.C. 139, 140; Panayides v. The Republic,
(1972)3 C.L.R. 135, 141;Sofocleous (No. 2) v. The Repu10 blir,
(1972)3 C.L.R. 637; Paraskevopoulou v. The Republic,
(1980)3 C.L.R. 647, 657, 659). The existence of the legitimate interest, even if not raised, may be examined by the Court ex proprio motu—(Constantinidou v. The Republic,
(1974)3 C.L.R. 416. 418). 15 The present applicants do not possess the qualifications required under the scheme of service for the post of Senior Ports Officer and, therefore, they never had a legitimate interest to raise these recourses. In view of all the aforesaid, these recourses fail and are 20 hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Recourses dismissed. No order as to costs. 433

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.