clr/1987/1987_3_1988.pdf

(2).35

(2)and 36 of Law 38/73 — It does nor violate Art. 28 of the Constitution because it adopts reasonable classifications. 5 The appellant did not possess the qualifications required by Reg 24 of Regs.317/82forpromotiontothepostofSenior PortsOfficer.The question, which calls for a decision in this appeal, is whether Reg. 24 is ultra vires the enabling section of the law i.e section 19

(2)of Law 38/73. or whether it is ultra vires sections 35

(2)and 36 of the same law. or whether it violates the 1 0 pnnciples of equality. Held, dismissing the appeal·

(1)The validity of the Regulation, which is an act of legislative nature, cannot be challenged directly by a recourse, nevertheless itsvalidity can be questionedbychallengingthesaidpromotions which are the outcome of the application of such regulation 15

(2)The aforesaid Regulation isnot ultra vires section 19

(2).

(3)Sections 35

(2)and 36 of Law 38/73 protect therightsof publicofficers who have been transferred to the service of respondent 1.but it cannot be held that they protect in any way the nght of further promotion of such officers.Reg 24 is not ultra vires thesaid sections -<4) The relevant provisions of Reg.24 protectthe prospectsto promotion of certain categories of persons, with service longer than, and different from, 1988 20 3 C.L.R. MeletUv.C.P.A. that otthe dppel ants inamanrvr that constitutesa reasonable classification which does normar.j. wa^u t v κ! .iga.nM \*ude 2Softhe Constitution Appeal. 5 10 Appeal againSt thejudgment of aJudge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Stylianides, J ) given on the 17th January 1986 (Revtsional Jurisdiction Case 103/83)* whereby appellants' recourse against the decision topromote the interested parties to the post of Senior PortsOfficer inthe Cyprus PortsAuthority was dismissed AS Angehdes.tor the appellants Ρ Ioanntdes. for respondent 1 A Vasstliades for respondent2 Cur adv vult TRIANTAFYLL1DES Ρ read the following judgment of the 15 Court The appellants have appealed against the first instance judgment of a Judge of this Court by means of which there was dismissed their recourse (No 103/83), under Article 146 of the Constitution, against the promotions to the post of Senior Ports Officer, in the service of respondent 1 of fifteen PortsOfficers 1st 20 Grade Theappellants were atthematenaltimealso holding thepostν f Ports Officer, 1stGrade having been promotedtosuch postat 'he same time as the other Ports Officers, 1st Grade, who we e promoted subsequently toSenior Ports Officers 25 Theappellantswere excluded from considerationforpromotion to thepost of Senior PortsOfficer because admittedly they didnot possess thequalifications for such promotion The said qualifications are to be found in regulation 24 of the Cyprus Ports Authonty (Officers' Schemes of Service and Other 30 Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1982 (see No 317, Third Supplement, Part I,to the Official Gazette of the Republic dated 30 December 1982) The first instancejudgment against which thisappeal has been made deals extensively with the facts of this case and the relevant 35 legislative provisions and itis notnecessary torefer tothem again *ReportedIn

(1986)3CLR 418 1989 TrUntafpffid*· P. Meletisv.C.P.A.

(1987)in this judgment (see Meletis ν Cyprus Pons Authui ir<. 19$'" I C.L.R. 418). By an InterimDecision which we gave on 12 February 1987* we decided to hear counsel for the appellants as regards the validity of thesaid regulation 24 (inwhich, ineffect nisset ouithe 5 scheme of service for the post of Senior PortsOfficer ν ·•'•J-'1 '• · ascertain whether or not the appellants possessed a legitimate interest entitling them to challenge the promotionb in quest,'- • because, though the said regulation, being an act ot legislative nature, cannotbe challenged directly as thesuhject-matter of the 10 present proceedings, nevertheless its validity can be questioned by challenging the said promotionswhicn are the outcomeof the application of such regulation Counsel for the appellants has contended that the aforementioned regulation 24 in so far as it relates to the 15 qualifications required for promotion to the post of Senior Putts Officer is invalid as being ultra vires the legislation under which if was made and as violating the principle of equality which is enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution. Regulations 317/82, of which regulation 24 forms part, were 20 made by respondent 1.with theapproval of respondent2. under subsection

(2)of section 19 of the Cyprus Ports Authority Law. 1973 (Law 38/73) Thesaid subsection wassubsequently repealed andreplaced by a new subsection

(2)by means of section 2 of the Cyprus Ports 25 Authonty (Amendment) (No.2) Law. 1987 (Law 62/87). but the new subsection

(2),inview of thetime at which itwas enacted,is not relevant for thepurposes of thedeterminationof thiscase. We see no reason to hold that regulation 24 is inany way ultra vires subsection

(2)of section 19 of Law 38/73 as itstood at the 30 materialtime. Counsel for the appellants has argued, however, that the provisions regarding qualifications for promotioninregulation 24. and in particular Note

(2)(

1. b)(
2. i)and (
3. ii)to paragraph

(4)of regulation 24, conflict with sections 35

(2)and 36 of Law 38/7H 35 and for this reason are ultra vires Law 38/

1. We need not quote in full the said provisions of Law 38/
2. which protect the rights of public officers who have.been •Reported

(1987)3C.L.R.

1. 1990 3C.L.B. Meletisv.C.P.A. Triantefpflid·*P. transferred to the service of respondent
2. since we are satisfied that on afair reading of such pioviMons itcannotbe held thatthey protect inany way therightoffurther promotionof such officers Therefore, even though thefurther promotion of the appellants 5 from Ports Officers 1st Grade to Senior Ports Officers was impeded by the provisions concernedof regulation 24 we cannot holdthat such provisions are inconflict with sections35

(2)and 36 ofLaw33/73 As regards thealleged violation of thepnncipleofequality tothe 10 detriment of the appellants and contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution we aie of the opinion that what was done by the relevant provisions of regulation 24 was toprotecttheprospectsto promotion of certain categories of persons, with service longer than, and different from, that of the appellants, in a mannerthat 15 was reasonably open to respondents and. therefore, this is an instance of reasonable classification which does not in any way offend against Article 28 of theConstitution. Torall theforegoing reasons we have to find thatregulation 24 isa valid enactmentand thattheappellants were rightly excluded 20 from promotion by virtue of its application; and, consequently. they do not possess a legitimate interest, in the sense of Artie'. 146

(2)of the Constitution entitling them to challenge the promotions of other. Pons Officers. 1st Grade, to the post ο Senior Ports Officer. 25 Intheresultthisappeal failsandhastobedismissed; butinview of theparticularcircumstancesofthiscase we shall makenoorder as tothecosts of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. No orderas to costs. 1991