(1988)1988June29 [KOURRIS, /.] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION CHRISTOSKRAMVIS, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo.421186). Practice—Recoursefor annulment—Unreservedlywithdrawn—Whetheritsreinstatementpossible—Questiondeterminedinthenegative.* Theapplicant withdrew unreservedly thisrecourseon thesameday, whenasecondrecoursefiledbyhimsucceededandthesubjudicepromotion wasannulled. However, theinterested party inthe secondrecourse <> filedanappeal,raisingforthefirsttimetheissuethatthesubjudiceactwas confirmatory ofthesubjudiceactinthisrecourse;whereupontheapplicant filed anapplicationforreinstatementofthisrecourse.Thisapplicationwas dismissed. Applicationfor reinstatementdismissed. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Nissis(No. 2) v.TheRepublic
(1967)3C.L.R. 671; Tsingisv. TheRepublic
(1984)3 C.L.R,1262; Rousosv.TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R.
- 15 1314 3 C.L.R. •;Κramνis v.Republic Application. * . ; ; ; , f.. .·( Application for reinstatementofrecourseNo.421/
- • . ·••< ι » • ',.. •. '• • -. ' -'" ,Λ.5.Angelides, for the applicant-... P.Hadjidemetriou, for therespondent. G.Triantafyllides, for theinterestedparty. ,Q Cur.,adv. vult. .,KOURRISJ.readthe_following judgment.Thisisanapplica tion for reinstatementof therecourse 421/87 based on s.ll of Law 33/64, Regulations 17, 18 and 19 of the SupremeCourt Rules, 1962, s.32 of Law 14/60 and the.Civil Procedure Rules Order.48,r.2,Order33, r. 1,25,Order65, r.ll. . -'i . • - · Thefacts whichgaverisetothisapplicationshortly are these:- 15 The applicant on 2.7.1986, filed recourse No. 421/86chal lenging the decision,of the Public Service Commission dated 2.6.1986,to promotetheinterestedparty tothe post'of.Registrar ofthePsychiatricServices of theDepartmentof Medical Services insteadof him. ,» , ' I 20 2 c ' "1 - • .Counsel for the applicant by.his letter dated 19.7.1986, re questedreconsiderationof thesaidpromotionandthePublicService Commissionconvenedon5.11.1986andhaving reconsid ereditsdecision,itconfirmed herprevious decision.The Office of thePublicService Commission communicated its decisionto the.counsel of theapplicantby letterdated9.12.
- Thereup on, applicant filed Recourse No. 8/87 which was heard by me andon28.12;1987 Idelivered judgment whereby Iannulledthe decisionpfthe.Public Service Commission. On theday of thehearing of Recourse No. 8/87, which was on9.12.1987*theapplicantthroughhis counsel withdrewwitH1315 KourrisJ. Κramvis v.Republic
(1988)out reservation recourse No.421/86 and consequently there coursewas dismissed. Interested party filed an appeal against thejudgment of Re course No. 8/87 andthroughhis advocate,who was notthe one appearing intherecourse. One of thegrounds of theappealwas 5 thatthedecision of thePublicService CommissioninRecourse No. 8/87 was aconfirmative administrativeactandnotanexecu tory oneandas such was notjusticiable. Anothergroundof ap peal was thattheRecourse 8/87 was outof time,if itwere tobe heldthatthedecisionwas aconfirmative one. 10 Counselfor theapplicantargued thatthereason why hefiled this application was becausetheinterestedpartyraised inhis ap peal, inter alia, theaforesaid grounds which were notraised in Recourse No.8/87. He said that had these two grounds been raised in the recourse he would not have withdrawn Recourse. 15 No. 421/86 but he would have tried it together with Recourse No. 8/87. Heconcludedthatit was for these reasons andacting in goodfaith,thathewithdrew RecourseNo.421/86 withoutres- . ervation. He relied onthecases ofNissis (No.2) v.TheRepub lic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 671; Tsingis v. The Republic
(1984)3 ^ C.L.R. 1262 andRousosv. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 119. Ihaveconsideredthesecases butinmyopiniontheyhaveno bearing onthematter.TheNissiscaserelated totheapproachof anappellateCourtwhentherewas anewgroundof appeal before it which was notraised before thetrial Court.TheTsingis case 2 ς was inrespectof theinherentjurisdiction of theCourt toreinstate arecoursewheretheapplicantfailed tocomplywiththedirections of theCourtregarding thefiling ofhiswrittenaddress andan or derwas madebytheCourtthatthecasewastreatedasabandoned andwas dismissed accordingly. With regard totheRousos case, thetrialJudgedismissed therecoursefor wantofprosecutionby being treated,primafacie, as having beenabandoneddueto the non- appearanceofcounselfor the applicant. Ihaveconsideredcarefully thesubmissions of counselforthe 1316 3C.L.R. Kramvis v.Republic Kourris J. applicantinviewof theparticularfacts of thiscasewhich caused meanxiety, butbecause therecoursewas withdrawn without res ervation,Icannotaccedetothisapplicationforreinstatement. ' • 5 f ι , τ For all thesereasons,theapplication isdismissed.Inviewof theparticularcircumstances of this application,Idonotpropose tomakeanyorderastocosts.'"* Applicationdismissed. Noorderastocosts. \ \ I 1317