(1987)1987 June 5 (A L01Z0U MAl^CHTOS LORIS PfKIS KOURR1S JJ ] THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION (NO4), Appellant-Respondent, ν MARINAPOTOUDESANDOTHERS, Respondents -Applicants (RevistonalJunsdichonAppealNo 680) RevisionalJunsdiction Appeal — Lackof serviceof recourseon interestedparties — Effect An objection was raised to that part of the address of counsel for the interested parties, which raised issues not included in RA 680 filed by the Appellant Commission, but included in RA 682, filed by the interested parties 5 Held,
(1)Thequestion of nonserviceof Recourses 106/84and 113/84 was left inabeyance by the ruling of 103 87* as,atthetime,itappeared thatno useful purposewould beservedbydelving intoit Nowtheposition changed (2}Thenonservice of thetworecourses amountstoagroundof nullityand thismattercanbe examined by the Courtexpropnomotu Itfollows thatthe judgment inso far as itrelates tosuch recourses mustbe set aside ΛΙ _. 4 Judgment inso faritrelates to Recourses 106/84 and 113/84 set aside . Objection. Objection raised to the part of the address of Counsel for the interested parties which aimed at raising grounds of appeal not included in the notce of appeal filed by the appellant Public Service Commission. A. Vladimirou, for theappellant A. Angehdes, A 10 Ladas, Ν Papaefstathiou, respondents •PSC ν PotoudesandOthers
(1987)3CLR 1044 1052 for the 15 20 3 C.L.R P.S.C.(No.4)v.Potoudes &Others L Papaphihppou, for the interest parties A LOiZOU J gave the following ruling of the Court In the course of the address of learned counsel forthe interested parties an objection was raised to the part of hisaddress which aimed at 5 raising grounds of appeal not included in the notice of RA 680, filed by the appellant Commission It may be mentioned here, however, that these grounds were raised in RA 682 which was filed bytheinterested partiesbutasithadbeen ruledbythisCourt itwould have been heard separately 10 After a ruling of this Court was given by our learned Brother PikisJ ,itbecame necessary to decide the objections which had been raised earlier in connection with the nght of an interested party to file an appeal though such party had not appeared and had not taken part intheproceedings inthe first instance Equally 15 connectedwiththisissuewasonce morethefactwhichbyourtwo rulings of the 10th March, 1987, we had decided in the first one that the question of service of a litigant could independently of whether the matter was raised in the grounds of appeal, also be entertained on itsown motion bytheCourtasthe examination of 20 any other ground of appeal would be futile, and by our second ruling we concluded that no service had been effected in recourses 106and 113withwhichweareconcerned inRevisional Appeal 682,though alongside with Recourse No 96/84 In the ruling, having reached that conclusion we set aside the 25 judgment given in recourse No 96/84 on the ground that there hadbeen aviolation oftherulesofnaturaljustice,the non-service beingaground of nullityand nota mereirregulanty,butweleftin abeyance the same issue as regards recourses Nos 106/84 and 113/84 as we were of the opinion at the time that for practical 30 reasonsitwouldservenopurposetosetasidethejudgments once the interested parties in those recourses had been served with otherrecourses challenging thesame administrative act. Nowthematterhastoberesolvedforthereasonsalreadygiven Having considered the matter we have no difficulty in following 35 our previous two rulings and conclude that the non-service of thesetworecoursesontheinterested partiesamountstoa ground of nullity and not an irregulanty and that this matter could be examined by this Court ex propno motu. We therefore set aside the judgment given in so far as it relates to these two recourses 1053 Λ.LotionJ. P.5.C.(No.4)v.Potoude·A Others
(1987)also.OncethathasbeendoneR.A.682 remainswithouta subject matter to be challenged by it and should be considered thatits purpose hascometoanend. We intendthereforetoproceedwiththehearingofR.A. 680on thegrounds thatappear onthenoticefiled. 5 Orderaccording!]/. 1054