clr/1988/1988_3_1063.pdf

(1986)3CUR. 2424).Inannullingthesubjudice decisioninthatrecoursetheCourthadthistosay: •"Thedecision consistsinfact oftwoparts.Thefirstpartrefers tothe decisionconcerningtheappointmentoftheapplicant,publishedonthe31st August,1984,tothepostofAttacheandthesecondthedecisiongivingret- 1063 Kapsos v.Republic

(1988)respectiveeffect tosuchappointmentasfrom the1stSeptember, 1981,insteadofthe1stJune,1984.Thefirstpartisnothingmorethanmerelyconfirmatory oftheappointment.Thesecondpartofthedecisionembodiesin fact anew decision that ofgivingretrospective effect tohisappointment whichisanexecutoryadministrativeactbyitselfandassuchitcanbechal- c lengedbyarecoursebyanypersonwhohasalegitimateinterest." Finally the subjudice decision in that recourse wasannulled on the ground thattwooftheapplicantswerewronglynotconsideredforpromotion, InvirtueofalegaladvicebycounselfortheRepublictheCommission 10 thoughtthatthedecisionannulledalsotheoriginalappointmentoftheapplicantasfrom 1.7.84.Consequently,theCommission revoked thetwofurtherpromotionsof theapplicantwhich weremadeafter the1.7.84andinformed theapplicant that he reverts to the position he had prior tohis appointmenttothepostofAttache

1. 15 Hencethisrecourse. Held,annulling thesubjudicedecision:ItisobviousthattheCommissionmisinterpreted theannullingdecisioninleronymides,supra. Insteadof restricting itself incompliancewiththesaidjudgment totheannulmentof theretrospectivepartofthatdecisiononly,ittookthesubjudicedecision, operatingunderamisconceptionoffactandlaw. 20 Subjudicedecisionannulled. Costsagainstrespondent. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent torevoke applicant's appointment as froml.6.1984 to the post of Attach£ in the Foreign Service. ~<- A. Constantinou, for the applicant. R. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 1064 30 3 C.L.R. Kapsos v. Republic SAVVIDES J.read thefollowingjudgment. Applicant by this recoursepraysfor thefollowingrelief: 5 10 (a)A declaration of theCourtthatthedecision of therespon­ dentdated 13thJanuary, 1987, whereby his appointmentas from 1stJune, 1984, tothepost of Attache intheForeign Service was revoked is uncostitutional and, orillegaland/orwithout anylegal effect. (b) A declaration of theCourtthatafter theannulmentof the aforesaid decision therespondent should takeall necessary steps for thefull restoration of theapplicant tohispost with retrospec­ tive effect. Thedecision complained of is contained in aletter sent tothe applicant by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission which reads as follows: 15 20 25 30 "Εχωοδηγίεςνααναφερθώστοδιορισμόσαςστημόνι­ μη (Τακτ. Προυπ.)θέση Ακολούθου, Εξωτερικές Υπηρε' σίες,αναδρομικάαπό 1.9.81 καινασαςπληροφορήσωότι το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο με την απόφαση του ημερ. 22.12.86στην Προφυγή με αρ. 843/85 (ΜάριοςΙερωνυμίδηςκαιάλλοιεναντίοντηςΚυπριακήςΔημοκρατίας μέσω τηςΕπιτροπήςΔημοσίαςΥπηρεσίας),κήρυξετην απόφα­ σητηςΕπιτροπήςΔημόσιαςΥπηρεσίας, μετηνοποίαδιο­ ριστήκατεστηνπιοπάνωθέση, άκυρη.
2. Μετάτην πιο πάνωαπόφαση του Ανώτατου Δικαστηρίου, η ΕπιτροπήΔημοσίας Υπηρεσίας έκρινε ότι η ακύρωσητου διορισμού σας στη μόνιμη (Τακτ. Προυπ.) θέσηΑκολούθου από 1.9.81 συμπαρασύρεικαιτις μετέπει­ τα προαγωγές σας στις μόνιμες (Τακτ.Προυπ.) Θέσεις Γραμματέα Β' ήΥποπρόξενου και Γραμματέα Α' ή Προξένου από 1.3.84 και 1.3.86 αντίστοιχα,καιέτσι αποφάσι­ σε να ανακαλέσει τις σχετικές αποφάσειςπου έλαβε στις συνεδρίες τηςμεημερ.2.12.85και24.4.
3. 1065 SavvidesJ. Kapsosv. Republic

(3)As aresult of theabove yourevert totheservicestatus prevailing before your appointmenttothepermanent post of Attache"i.e.tothepostof Administrative Officer, Public Ad­ ministrationandPersonnelService." Thehistory of thiscaseandtherelevantfacts runbackto 1981 when anumberofvacancies for thepostofAttache*intheMinis­ try of ForeignAffairs was tobefilledTheapplicantwas amongst thecandidatesfor appointmnttosuchpost whowereconsidered by thePublicService Commission.Othercandidates,totheex- 30 elusion of theapplicant,werefound suitable forpromotionandas a result they were offered appointmentas from 1st September, 1066 25 3C.L.R. 5 ,« ^ 20 25 30 Kapsosv.Republic SavvidesJ. 1981. The applicant filed recourse No. 356/81 as a result of whichtheCourtannulledtheappointmentofoneoftheinterested partiesinsuchrecourse,namely,G.Evriviades(see,Kapsouv. TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R., 1336).Asaresultof theannulmehtoftheappointment ofEvriviades therespondentCommissionre-examinedthematterin 1984anddecidedtoappointtothe posttheapplicant asfrom1stJuly, 1984.Thedecisionwaspublishedintheofficial GazetteoftheRepublicofthe31stAugust, 1984,undernotification 2033(hissaidpromotion wasnotchallengedbyanybody).Theapplicantrequestedthathisappointment bemadewithretrospectiveeffect asfrom1stSeptember,1981. Hisrequestwasturneddownandasaresulthefiled arecourseto this Court which, however, was withdrawn when theCommissionundertook toconsider thematterofretrospectivity.Finally, theCommissiondecided onthe29thMay, 1985thattheappointmentoftheapplicantshouldbegivenretrospectiveeffect as from the1stSeptember, 1981,'thedateoftheappointmentinsuchpost of Evriviades whoseappointment hadbeenannulled bytheSupremeCourtinrecourseNo.356/81.Thenotification tothateffect waspublishedintheofficial GazetteoftheRepublicofthe19th July, 1985.Arecourse was filed against such promotion by a numberofinterestedpartiessomeofwhichhadalegitimateinteresttochallenge theretrospectivity of suchpromotion andothers whowerechallenging thepromotionof theapplicant tothepost ofAttache"(seeleronymidesandOthersv.TheRepublic

(1986)3 C.L.R.2424whichwasdealtwithbymeandinwhichjudgment wasdeliveredonthe22ndDecember,1986)^ Asthe subdecision rests entirely on theconstruction of the saidjudgment Ifinditnecessary torefer tosomeofmy findings inthesaidjudgmentconcerning theannulmetof thedecisionof therespondentpublishedintheGazetteonthe19thJuly, 1985.1 hadthistosayinthisrespectatpp.2431and2432of thejudgment: "Thedecision of therespondent which waspublished on the 19thJuly, 1985,bearing inmindallthesurroundingcircumstancesofthecaseconsistsinfact oftwoparts.The first 1067 Savvides J. Kapsos v. Republic

(1988)part refers tothedecision concerning theappointment of the applicant, published on the31st August, 1948,tothepostof Attache*andthesecond thedecisiongivingretrospective effect tosuch appointment asfromthe 1stSeptember, 1981instead of the 1st June, 1984. The first part is nothing more than 5 merelyconfirmatory oftheappointmentoftheinterestedparty tothepostwhich hewasalready holdingandassuchitcould notbechallengedbyarecourseoncetheoriginalactofhisappointment wasnotchallenged byanyof theapplicantswithin the 75 days time limit prescribed by the Constitution. (See -,„. minutes of themeeting of 29.5.85from which itisobvious that only thedateof theappointment of theinterested party wasreconsidered.) Thesecondpartof thedecision embodies infactanewdecisionthat ofgivingretrospectiveeffect tohis appointment whichisanexecutoryadministrativeactbyitself andassuch itcanbechallenged byarecoursebyanyperson whohasalegitimateinterestaffected bysuchdecision." Then Iwentontheexaminethepositionofthevariousapplicantsin thatcase and bearing inmind myabovefinding Iconcluded that twoof theapplicants and inparticular applicants 2 and4inthatcasehadnolegitimate interesttochallengethesub judicedecision. Concerning threeotherapplicants andinparticularapplicants 3, 5 and 8Iconcluded that theirrecourse should fail in viewof thefact thattheyhad alsobeenoffered appointment asfrom 1st September, 1981 and, therefore, nolegitimate interest of theirs would havebeen affected bytheretrospectivepromotion of the applicantasfrom1stSeptember, 1981.Astotheremainingapplicants 1 and6Ifound asfollowsatp.2433: "Applicants 1and 6were appointed since 1983andwere ^0 holdingthesamepostastheoneoffered totheinterestedparty. As already found they had nolegitimateinterest tochallenge thepart of thedecision concerning theappointmentof the interested party as from the 1st June, 1984 as such appointment wassubsequent totheirown.They werehowever, 35 1068 3 C.L.R. Kapsos v. Republic SavvidesJ. entitled to challenge theretrospective effect given to his ap­ pointmentas by such decision theinterested party was given anadvantage over them,that of nearly twoyears seniority." andatp.24341 concluded asfollows: 5 "Inthelight of my abovefindings Ihave come tothe con­ clusion thatthe respondent Commission by excluding appli­ cants 1and6fromconsideration when itdecided toappoint theinterested partyretrospectively actedunderamisconception of law and fact andfailed tocarry out adueinquiry intothe matter." 10 15 20 25 30 Counsel who appeared for the respondent in recourse No. 843/85, by letter dated 2nd January, 1987 informed therespon­ dentas totheresult of therecourse giving atthe same time his opinionas tothenecessary steps tobetaken by therespondentin compliance with thesaiddecision. As thecontentsof such letter arematerial for theoutcomeof thepresentcase andthey form the basisonwhich therespondent took thesubjudice decision Ifind it necessary torefer tothefull text of such letter which reads as follows: "Ενσχέσει προςτηνυπότονωςάνωαριθμόνκαιτίτλον προσφυγήν και εν συνεχεία της επιστολής μου της 23ης Δεκεμβρίου 1986, σας πληροφορώότι, κατά την γνώμην μου, δια να υπάρξηουσιαστική συμμόρφωσις προς την ακυρωτικήν.απόφασιν του Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου,και δυνατότης επανεξετάσεωςκαιεπιλογήςδια διορισμόνμε­ ταξύ των αιτητών και του ενδιαφερομένου μέρους,από της 1ηςΣεπτεμβρίου, 1981,αύτη, (ηαπόφασις)πρέπεινα ερμηνευθήότι πρακτικώςηκύρωσετονδιορισμόν τουεν­ διαφερομένου μέρους απότης 1ηςΣεπτεμβρίου1981,πε­ ριλαμβανομένου τον αρχικού διορισμού τον από 1ηςΙου­ λίου 1984, καιτούτοανεξαρτήτωςτωνόσων αναφέρονται στησελίδα5τηςαποφάσεως. 2.Περαιτέρω,ειςπλήρησυμμόρφωσινπροςτηνακυρω1069 Savvides J. Kapsos v. Republic

(1988)τικήν απόφασιν, η Επιτροπή, μετά την εξαφάνισιντων αποτελεσμάτωντουκατάταανωτέρωακυρωθέντοςδιορι­ σμού,θαπρέπειναπροχώρησηκαιειςτηνανάκλησιν της προαγωγής του ενδιαφερομένου μέρους εις την θέσιν Γραμματέως Β ήΥποπροξένου (ΕξωτερικέςΥπηρεσίες) από 1ης Μαρτίου 1984, εφ'όσον ο ακυρωθείςδιορισμός απετέλεσε την βάσιν της εν λόγω προαγωγής ευρισκόμε­ νος,επομένως,ειςστενόν σύνδεσμονμεαυτήν. 5 3.Όσον αφορά την επανεξέτασιν, πιστεύωότιπρέπει να αναμένωμεν ναπαρέλθηηπροθεσμία τηςεφέσεως ." 10 The respondent met on 10th January, 1987 andaccording to its minutesafter makingverbatim reference totheaforesaid letter took thesubjudice decision which was incorporated intheletter senttotheapplicant. In fact two appeals were filed against my judgment in the above recourse, oneby theapplicant himself andone by oneof 15 theinterested parties, both of which, however, were withdrawn before they were heard. The respondent did not file an appeal against thesaidjudgment. Counselfor applicantsargued thatthe respondentmisinterpret­ edand wronglyapplied thejudgment of theSupremeCourtin re­ course No.843/85 andfailed topay congizance andcomply with 20 thedirections of theCourtas appearing in thereasoning of the judgment of theCourtin theabove recourse. Hefurther argued thattherespondentby revoking theappointmentof theapplicant to the post of Attach6 in the Foreign Service of the Republic which he was holding since 1st June, 1984 acted arbitrarily and contrary tothelaw andtheConstitution. 25 Counsel for respondent instead of filing awritten address in accordance with the directions of the Court sent a letter tothe Chief Registrar on the16th September, 1987,with copy tothe ap­ plicant,thecontentsof which readasfollows: 1070 3 C.L.R. 5 JQ 15 Kapsos v. Republic SavvidesJ. " With reference totheaboveintituledrecoursewhich has beenfixed by theCourtfor clarifications andevidenceon the 5th November,1987 and in which Ihave notfiledawritten address you arerequested tobring tothenoticeof the Court thatmypositiononthequestionraised inthisrecourseiscon­ tained in my opinion to the respondent dated 2nd January, 1987,which is attachedasannexΤ tomyopposition.I adopt such opinion for the purposes of a written address, making myselfavailablefor any clarifications which mightbeasked by theCourt." ' Ipauseatthispointtostatethat theleast Ishouldsay isthat it isregrettable thatresponsible counselwhoappearfor the Repub­ licinsteadof complying with thedirectionsof theCourt andfile anaddress expoundingonthegroundsof theiroppositionand replyingtotheargumentsadvancedby theothersidetheyfeel satis­ fied by addressing alettertotheRegistrar repeatingonlyan opin­ ion which was expressedby himtotherespondentCommission andnotappearing before theCourttoadvance any argumentin supportof hisopinion.When thecasewasfixed for clarifications counsel whowas handlingthecasedidnotappearinpersonand counselappearingonhisbehalf statedthat hehadnothingelse to addinclarification. Thedecision of theCourtinleronymides andOthersv.The Republic (supra)isinmyviewclearandunambiguous. As stated thereinthedecision oftherespondentofthe29thMay,1985 con­ sistedof two parts.Thefirst partconfirmed theappointment of theapplicanttothepostof Attache which was published onthe 31st August, 1984 andthesecond partwas giving merelyretro­ spectiveeffect tohisprevious appointmentas from 1stSeptem­ ber, 1981.Theopinionexpressedby counsel for the respondent -*" inhis letterdated2ndJanuary, 1987 is clearly based ona com­ pletemisconceptiononhispartoftheeffect of suchjudgmentand a wronginterpretationgiven astoitseffect. Itwas hisowninter­ pretationof thejudgment thatledtherespondenttotake thesub 35 judice decision whoon its part took for granted thecontentsof his letterwithoutgoingintothetroubleof reading thejudgment 1071 SavvidesJ. Kapsos v.Republic

(1988)and drawing its own conclusions as to what wasin fact decided by the Court.The respondent, therefore, instead of restricting itself incompliance with thesaidjudgment totheannulment of the retrospective partof itsdecision only,operating under amisconception of fact and law, towhich they were led by their legal ad- 5 visers,tookthe subjudice decision which for allintends andpurposesisnull andvoid and notincompliance with thejudgmentof the Court incase No.843/85. For all the above reasons the subjudice decision is annulled with costs against the respondent. 10 Subjudice decisionannulled withcostsagainstrespondent. 1072