clr/1987/1987_3_419.pdf

(1987)Held, dismissing the appeal

(1)The appointment of the interested party had been completed by the acceptance of the offer made to her before the enactmentofLaw20/81 Thepublicationoftheappointmentwasonlyanact of execution The change effected by Law 20/81 demanded the corresponding adaptation as regards the post to which the interested party had been appointed in relation to the carrying into effect of the said appointment 5

(2)Inthe light of theabove thisappealshould fail Appealdismissed Appellants topay £100 costsagainstthecostsof theinterestedparty \Q Casesreferredto Zachanadesv TheRepublic{1984)3 CLR 1193 Appeal. 15 Appeal against the judgment of the President of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (TriantafyHides, P.) given on the 15th February, 1986 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No. 278/81)* whereby appellants' recourse against the promotion of theinterested party to the post of Clerk 1st Grade in the General Clerical Staff was 20 dismissed. E.Lemonaris, for the appellants A. Papassawas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. A S . Angehaes, for the interested party. 25 Cur.adv. vult. A. LOIZOU,J. read the following judgment of the Court. The appellantalongwithoverahundredandfiftyofficersservinginthe postofClerkSecond GradechallengedbyarecourseunderArticle 146of the Constitution theappointment ofthe interested partyto 30 the post of Clerk First Grade in the General Clerical Staff. That recourse was dismissed bythe learned President of thisCourt on theground that the present appellants «didnotseek appointment to the post of Archivist First Grade, at the House of Representatives and so they could not validly contend that a 35 •Reportedin

(1986)3CL R1417 420 3 C.L.R. Tsountas and Others v. Republic A. Lolzou J . legitimate interest of theirs in the sense of Article 146

(2)of the Constitution was in any way affected by the selection of the interested party by the respondent Commission for appointment to such post, nor was there affected adversely and directly any 5 such legitimate interest of the appellants by the subsequent emplacement of the interested party in the post of Clerk First Grade because none of them had applied forappointment tothe post of Archivist which became later by operation of the Supplementary Budget Law(No.3)1981(LawNo.20of 1981)a 10 post of Clerk First Grade in which the interested party was emplaced notinsteadofanyoneoftheapplicantsandinanyevent independently ofanyclaim ofanyone ofthem tobe promoted. As against that judgment they filed the present appeal. The relevant facts are briefly these. 15 On the 30th August 1980, the President of the House of Representatives acting as the appropriate Authority with the consent of the Ministry of Finance proposed to the respondent Commission to take all necessary steps for the filling of the permanent post of Archivist, First Grade at the House of 20 Representatives.Thesaidpostwasafirstentryandpromotion one and the vacancy in itwas advertised in the official Gazette of the Republicofthe 10th October, 1980.Thirty-sevenpersons,oneof whom wasthe interested partyapplied for appointment. Noneof theapplicantsinthe present recourse wasamong them. 25 At its meeting of the 6th April 1981 the respondent Commission after following the prescribed procedure decided thatthe interested partywassuperiortothe remaining candidates and the most suitable for that post and selected her for appointment on probation. On the 9th April, the interested party 30 was informed by letter that the respondent Commission had decided tooffer her appointment on probation tothe Permanent (Ordinary) Post of Archives Officer First Grade in the House of Representatives, which the interested partyaccepted bytheletter of the 15th April 1981.Inthe meantime, however, and by letter 35 datedthe31stMarch 1981,theDirector-GeneraloftheMinistryof Finance communicated tothe respondent Commission acopyof aletterhehad addressed tothe Director-General ofthe Houseof RepresentativesbywhichhewasinformingthemthattheMinister ofFinancehad withdrawn hisapproval forthe filling ofthevacant 40 postofArchivistOfficer, FirstGradeasaresultofarecentdecision of theJoint Reorganization Committee forthetransfer ofthe two 421 A. Lolzou J. Tsountas and Others v. Republic

(1987)posts of Archivist Officer, FirstGrade tothe General ClericalStaff andtheywereasked nottoproceed withthefillingofthepost.The Director-General of the House ofRepresentatives byletterofthe 8th April referred to the immediate needs of their office and expressed the viewthat there wasno reason why,because of the 5 transfer of the post to the General Clerical Staff, the filling of the post should be suspended. Copy ofthe said letterwassent to the Public Service Commission. In the light of the above the Chairman of the Public Service Commission by letter dated 9th April 1981 addressed to the 10 Director-General oftheMinistryofFinance,afterremindinghimof the provisions of section 17 of the Public Service Laws 19671980,informed himthatinviewofthefactthattheproposalforthe filling of the post had not been withdrawn by the appropriate Authority, the Commission would proceed tothe appointment of 15 the person selected. Wemaypause here foramomentandsaythatthisapproachof the Chairman of the Public Service Commission was in accordance with the provisions of section 17of the Law and itis fully supported bythejudgment ofthe FullBench ofthisCourtin 20 Zachariades v. The Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1193atp.

1. On the 22nd April 1981,the aforementioned Supplementary Budget Law was published in the official Gazette. Byvirtue ofits provisionsthepostofArchivesOfficers FirstGradewere renamed to Clerks First Grade inthe General Clerical Staff who retained 25 salaryscaleA.7asitwasbefore.Itmaybenotedherethatnormally the post of the Clerk First Grade is a promotion post from the immediatelylowerpostofClerkSecondGradeandinorderthatthe holderofsuchlowerpostbeeligibleforpromotion, must,interalia, haveconsiderableexperienceof Governmentofficeworkandmust 30 have passed the examinations in General Orders and Financial instructions. Moreover before the enactment of Law 20/81 the post of ClerkFirstandSecond Grade wereseparate whereasnow they became joint. Inthe lightof the situation asitdeveloped the respondent Commission sought legal advice from the Attorney- 3 5 General of the Republic. TheDeputyAttorney-General advisedinteraliathaton account of the change made to the posts there should be corresponding 422 3 CL.1t. Tsountas and Others v. Republic A. Lotzou J. adaptation as regards the post to which «MissAdamou {nowthe interested party)wasappointed andthatthenecessary instrument ofappointment shouldrefertothepostofClerkFirstGradewhich corresponds with the previous post for which her original 5 appointment had already been completed». The respondent Commission at its meeting of the 6th June 1981, decided toemplacetheinterestedpartytothepostofClerk First Grade in the General Clerical Staff and fixed as a date of commencement of her appointment to that post the 15th June 10 1981 and it was that decision that was published in the official Gazette oftheRepublicofthe 19thJune 1981, under Notification
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as the interested party did not possess the required qualifications she 15 could not be appointed tothat post. We have considered the case and we have come to the conclusion that this appeal should fail as the appointment of the interested party·had been completed by the acceptance of the offer made to her before the 22nd April 1981, when the Law 20 renamedthepost.Thepublicationoftheappointmentwasonlyan act of execution.The change effected tothe vacant post inwhich the interested party wasappointed bythe intervening enactment ofLaw20/81demanded thecorrespondingadaptationasregards the post to which the interested party had been appointed in 25 relation to the carrying into effect of the said appointment. No' doubt under section 37 of the Public Service Law « a permanent appointment is effected by a written offer made by the Commissiontothepersonselectedforappointmentand accepted byhim inwriting»,and thishasbeen complied withinthe present 30 case. As regards costs, having considered the totality of the circumstances of this case, we have come tothe conclusion that the appellants should pay £
3. - as against the costs of the interested party inthisappeal. 35 Appeal dismissed. Appellants topay £100.againstcostsofinterested party. 423