(1987)1987March 10 [A.LOEOU,MALACHTOS.LORIS,PIK1S, KOURRIS,JJ.] THEPUBUCSERVICECOMMISSION(N0.2), Appellant-Respondent, v. MARINAPOTOUDESANDOTHERS, Respondents-Applicants. (RevisionalJunsdictionAppealNo. 680). NaturalJustice —Rightto be heard —RevisionalJurisdictionAppeal —Lackof serviceofrecourseon interestedparties—Effect. Revisional JurisdictionAppeal — Lack of service of the recourse on interested parties—Effect. The sixteen interested partiesinrecourse 106/84 and 113/84, which had not been served on them, were thesame astheinterested partiesinanother recourse,whichhadbeenservedandresultedinthejudgmentappealed from byRevisionalJurisdictionAppeal680.Alltheaforesaid recourses impugned thesame administrative act. 5 Recourse 96/84, which related to vacancies for French speaking officers and inwhich there are four interested parties,different from thesaid sixteen interested parties in the aforesaid two recourses, was not served on such interested parties. 10 Held,
(1)As in the cases where judgment was delivered, subject of RevisionalAppeal680,there hasbeen effected service,thelackofservicein 1 5 theother recoursescannot affect theoutcome ofthe appeal.
(2)Asregardsrecourses 106/84and 113/84there isnoneed todelve any more intothem. Indeed, iftheappeal succeeds,therewillbean opportunity toeffect service,whereas, ifthe appeal failsandtheannulment isconfirmed, theywillsuffer no detriment.
(3)The position is different as regards recourse 96/84. The omission constitutesamaterialviolationoftherulesofnaturaljusticeand,therefore,the judgment delivered inthisrecourse mustbesetaside. Orderaccordingly. Casesreferredto: 25 Dance v. The Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R.2062, and on appeal
(1986)3 C.L.R.1806. 1046 3C.L.R P.S.C.(No.2)v.Potondea&Others Preliminarypoint. Preliminarypointastothe effect of lackofservice oncertainof the interested parties in some of the recourses which had been heard together with the rest and resulted in the judgment under 5 appeal. A. Vladimerou,for the appellant. A. Angelides,A.Ladas,N.Papaefstathiou,fortherespondents. L. Papaphilippou, fortheinterested parties. A. LOIZOU J.: We have already given our ruling on the 10 preliminary point whether at thisstage and without being one of the grounds of appeal this Court could examine the question whether the required service of the recourse of the interested parties, named therein, or some of them, was effected. We shall therefore proceed to rule on the merits of the issue after the 15 ascertainment of the extent of the nonservice of the recourse on the interested parties. (Hearingresumed). 20 25 30 35 A. LOIZOU J.: After perusal of the relevant files, it has been ascertained that in recourse No. 96/84 which relates to the vacanciesfor French speakingofficers and inwhichtherearefour interested partiesnoservicewaseffected norreference ismadeto such service inthe affidavits ofservicefiledinany other recourse heard together with it. Furthermore there does not appear also service to have been effected in recourses numbers 106/84 and 113/84, which challenge the validity of the same administrative act and relate to the same sixteen interested parties. It appears, however, that these two recourses werefiledsubsequently tothe filing ofthe otheronesandwhentheprocessforthefirstoneshad alreadygone onitsway,yet,astheywererelatingtothesame sub judice act challenged by the rest, they were tried together with them andjudgment wasdelivered inrespectofall.Thisjudgment isthesubject ofthe present appeal. The examination of the affidavits of service hasrevealed to our satisfaction that in the cases where judgment was delivered, subject matter of RevisionalAppeal 680,there hasbeen effected service and as a result this ground which it undermines and interferes with the administration of justice because itdeprives a 1047 A.LolzoaJ. P.S.C.(No.2) v.PotoudeaA Others
(1987)litigant of the opportunity to be heard, cannot succeed. If any authorityisneededreference maybemadetothejudgmentofthe Full Bench of this Court in the case of Yiannakis Danos v.The Republic, Revisional Appeal 527, delivered on the 13th November, 1985, not yet reported*, which has set out the 5 principlesthatgovernthesubject.Referencemayalsobemadeto thefirst instancejudgmentreportedunderthesametitlein
(1985)3 C.L.R.2062whichwasconfirmed onappeal. As,however, no practical resultwillemerge inthe instanceof recourses 106/84and 113/84,weshallnot delveanymoreinto 10 them atthisstage and differ ourrulingasiftheappealsucceeds, then in so far as those interested parries are concerned an opportunity willbeavailabletohavetherecoursesservedonthe saidinterestedpartiesandiftheresultgoestheotherwaytheywill suffer no detriment whatsoever once the annulment of the 15 administrative act will be confirmed. That, however, which we cannot ignore for anyreason, istheinstanceofrecourse number 96/84 in which as we already said there has not been effected service on the four interested parties named therein which are different thanthesixteeninterested partiesoftheotherrecourses 20 and which are on an entirely different footing. This omission constitutesamaterialviolationoftherulesofnaturaljusticeandas suchagroundofnullityandnotoneofmereirregulatity,wehave cometotheconclusion thatthejudgment deliveredinrespectof thisrecoursemustbeandisherebysetaside. 25 The recourse will have to be served on the said interested parties in the prescribed manner and be heard de novo but as regardsitshearingadirectionwillbemadeinduecourse. WeshallnowproceedtohearRevisionalAppeal680. Orderaccordingly. 30 •Nowreportedin
(1986)3CLR. 1806. 1048