3 CX.R. , '•.·•* .; 1988July 14 - , [Α.L01Z0U, P.] INTHEMATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION : - ELENILAMBROU ANDOTHERS,, - ο:·' ' Applicants, v. " ' THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH · ^
- THEPUBLIC SERVICECOMMISSION, 2.THEMINISTRY OF HEALTH,, Respondents. (CaseNo. 449/87). 5 Public Officers-jLaw 127186—Applicants"posted",but not "seconded", in • ordertoperform dutiesofahealthvisitor—For thisreason,their claimfor appointment as healthVisitors 1stGrade,is notcovered bysaidlaw-^-The State Officers (Temporary Regulating Provisions) Law, 1975 (Law 541 75)—It hasnobearing inthiscase. The factsof thiscaseneed notbesummarized.Theoutcomeof therecourse.whereby theapplicantsimpugnedtherefusal toappointthem inthe aforesaidpost,dependedontheinterpretationofLaw127/
- . . ,„ 10 · »*f' t. . ' ' "' ' - : Recourse dismissed. ' · · Recourse. ,, l Noorder as to costs. . ι* Ί - " Recourse against the refusal of the respondents'to appoint ap plicants to the post of Health Visitor 1st Grade under'the provi sion of Law 127 o f
- " 15 ;;. a A.S.'Angelides, for the'applicants/ .1425 ' /' ' " ' ' ,. ,-,'"1 "[ Lambrou & Others v. Republic
(1988)A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for there spondents. Cur. adv. vult. A. LOIZOUP.read thefollowingjudgment. By thepresent recoursetheapplicantsseek adeclarationof theCourtthattheact 5 of therespondentCommission by which theapplicationof the ap plicantsfor appointmenttothepostof HealthVisitor 1stGradeis nullandvoid andwith nolegal effect. The applicants by their letter dated the 3rd February 1987 asked therespondentCommission toappointthemtothepostof 10 Health Visitor 1st Gradein view of theprovisions of LawNo. 127of 1986advancing for thepurposethefollowingarguments: (a)They hadlong and prefect service at thespecial duties of HealthVisitor, (
- b)they were posted in the'School Medical Service so that 15 therewould bearesponsible qualified andselect teamof Health Visitors; it (c)theyhadspecial training; (
- d)they were detached from theordinary functions of their serviceasnursing sisters , and, (e)they were alwaysassured thatthey would be absorbed or ganically intheposts nowpublished for thefirst'time andwhich were for alongtimeunderconsideration. Thecontentsof theletterinquestionwerecommunicatedtothe Directorof MedicalandPublicHealthServices for hiscomments. TheDirectorby his letterdated the 11th March 1987 (Appendix 3)informed therespondentCommission thatthesaid nursingsis ters were posted andnotseconded inordertoperform dutiesofa Health Visitor.Thereason for such posting was thatthe Service 1426 2 ς 3<C.L'.R. Jfambrou & Others v: Republic A>Loizbu'P.'1 believed andcontinuesto'believe that:it wasnecessaryto^have theirservicesoffered totheSchoolMedicaPServiceofthe tiepart-l ment:ThepostofaNursingSister'isonthesamesalaryscaleasT thatofja'Health Visitor 1st Grade and*at their posting'in'the 5? School.MedicalService there wasrnopost"of-Health Visitor!stJ Grade1establishedbyLaw. • - * -^ '-,·•• i.-i.-ini FurthermoretherespondentCommission soughttheadviceof thcAttorney -'General'of theRepublicoh thepoint whetherthe saidofficers'were covered bythe-provisio'nsofLaw"No. 127 of 1Q\ 1986takingintoconsiderationthatnoactofsecondmenthadbeen madeby therespondent Commission. In response totheabbv£questiontheDeputyAttorney-GeneraloftheRepublicbyhisletterdatedthe13thApril 1987(Appendix5)'gavetheopinionthat under thecircumstances theprerequisitesofthe said Law'were <- not-satisfied given'thatthesaidofficers hadnot:beensecondedtor thepost ofHealth Visitor 1stGrade'as'required expressly bys.n : 291ofthe:Law.· * -' · -•'- > >'· • • · " ·'*') The'respondent Commission byits letter'dated the6thMay 1987'informed'the applicantsof^theopinionoftheDeputyAttdrney-Generalobservingatthesametimethatinaccordance'withthesameLawtheappointmentofanofficer ismade"onthebasis ofthelistsofcarididatestfor appointmentwhichwereplacedbeforethe House©^Representatives"andthatthenamesofhiscliemshadnotbeenincludedinthelistsplacedbefore the1Houseof ir ,v Representatives. ' - •** ;J"- J • • • 2Q ' 'It'isithecasefor theapplicantsthattherespondentCommission actedunderamisconception'of law:The~misconception iscon?7 tainedintheletteroftherespondentCommissionofthe6thApril 1987(Appendix'4)bywhichitaskedtheopinionoftheAttorney -General.Inits.2
(1)of theaforesaid Lawismentioned andin particulartheinterpretationoftheterm"secondedofficers". Atthe sametimeitignored, however, theprovisions of s.2
(1)ofThe State Officers (Temporary Regulating Provisions) Law, 1975 (LawNo.54of 1975)inwhichthetermofStateOfficer", isde35 fined as Public Officer within the meaning of Law No. 33 1427 A. Loizou P. Lambrou &Others v. Republic
(1988)of 1967 and its s. 2
(2)refers for its interpretation to this latter Law. Moreover under s. 3
(1)(a) of Law No. 54 of 1975 the powertotransferortosecondPublicOfficers forthedischargeof anyotherdutiesinanyotherservice,dependingonitsneeds,can bedone by other organs than the Public Service Commission. 5 Therefore, thereispowerof secondment ortransfer byanother organ. IthastobenotedthatunderthisprovisionitistheMinisterof FinanceortheDirector-GeneralofthatMinistrydulyauthorized thatcouldactthereunderbeyondthepowersofthePublicService JQ Commission. AperusalofLawNo.54of 1975showsthatithasnobearing whatsoever in thecasein hand asirrespectiveof anyotherconsideration there has not been any action by the Minister of FinanceorbyhisDirectorGeneral norhasbeenshown that these j ^ applicants could not be otherwise engaged in accordance with theirordinarydutiesandresponsibilities'. Intheinstantcasethe applicablelawisLawNo.127of 1986,anditsprerequisiteshave not beensatisfied andtherefore theapplicantscannotbringtheir casewithinitsambit. Ineednotdealatlength withthegroundofdiscrimination as equalitybeforetheLawinparagraph 1 ofArticle28entailsequal treatmentof all thosewhoarefound tobein thesamesituation, andtheapplicantswerenot. Foralltheabovereasonstherecoursefails andisherebydis- 25 missedbutinthecircumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissed. Noorderastocosts. 1428 20