(1988)1988 August23 [SAWIDES,J.J INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146 OFTHECONSTITUTION THEODORAALE*ANDROUKKELI, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGHTHEPERSONNELAND PUBLICADMINISTRATIONDEPARTMENT, Respondents. ι (CaseNo. 232185). Executoryact—Law32/8Jprovidingfor appointmentof casualofficersto or ganicposts—^Decision not to includeapplicantin thelistsubmittedto the PublicServiceCommissionfor appointment—Decisionbasedonviewthat applicantdidnotsatisfytherequiredqualifications—Thedecisioncreateda legalsituationaffectingtheapplicantandis,therefore,executory. 5 PublicOfficers—Appointments—Law32181providingfor appointmentofcas ualofficerstoorganicposts—Qualifications—Judicialcontrol—Courtwill notinterfere,ifdecisionreasonablyopento therespondents. The respondents did not includetheapplicantin thelistfor appoint mentssubmittedtothePublicServiceCommissioninvirtueof Law 32/81. Thisdecisionwas basedontheviewthatapplicantdid notpossessthequa lificationsrequiredby thesaidlaw. As, onthematerialadducedbefore the Court, such a conclusion was reasonably open to the respondents, the Courtdismissedtherecourse. J 10 Recoursedismissed. *•$ Noorderas tocosts. 1618 3 C.L.R. Kkeli v.Republic ••ι. • .: .''·;ν .• · Recourse. Recourse against thedecision and/oromission of therespon-t dentstorefuse toappointand/orpromotetheapplicant:tothepost ofHousekeeperintheDepartmentofWelfare Services. 1 5.Sofroniou, for theapplicant. Ch.Kyriakides, Counselof tie Republic,for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. ' SAVVIDES J. read the followingjudgment. The applicant challenges thedecision and/oromission of therespondents con tainedintheirletterdatedthe 16thJanuary, 1985,whereby they refused toappointand/orpromotehertothe postofHousekeeper intheDepartmentof.Welfare Services. •y , :\ · .*. '< v . . •·. ι .. · - . :. f Thefacts of thecasearebriefly asfollows: . Theapplicantwas appointedon'1stNovember, 197\\ asaDo mestic Servant onacasual basis.Oh 1stJune, 1978, she was assigned dutiesof aHousekeeper. ,As from the 1stDecember, 1983,four casual "Housekeepers" were appointed tothepermanentpost of Housekeeper andtheir appointmentwas published intheofficial Gazetteof theRepublic datedthe 23rd March,1984.Theapplicant,whowas.notappoint ed,protested by letter totheDirectorof Welfare Services, who informed hercounsel, by letterdatedthe30thMay,1984,thatthe post of Housekeeper was abolished by adecision of theMinis:i tries of FinancearidLabourand Social msurance,'dated the 2nd July", 1979, and renamed as "Institutional"Assistant", thather non-emplacementtosuch'post was duetoamistake andthat the ' . 1 , ' 1 ι i it ' ! .' '" ' ·** ' J ' Departmentwas ready,toemplacehertothepostofInstitutional Assistantretrospectively, asfrom1stNovember, 1979.Theletter endedby staring thattheappointmentof otherpersons tothepost of Housekeeperwas madeinaccordancewiththeprovisions ofs." 1619 • (1 SavvidesJ. Kkeliv. Republic
(1988)3ofLaw32/81,whichdidnotapplytotheapplicant.Theapplicant then addressed, through hercounsel,alettertotherespondents dated the 4th December, 1984,claiming that she should havebeenappointedtothepostofHousekeeper.Therespondents replied byletterd*\tedthe 16thJanuary, 1985,informing heras 5 follows: "Ihavebeeninstructedtorefertoyourletterdatedthe4th December, 1984,inrespectofaclaimofMrs.TheodoraAlexandrouKkeli,for appointment tothepostofHousekeeper,in theDepartmentof SocialServices,andtoinform youthat,on 10 the basisof the material submitted tous by theDepartment, yourclient is not entitled toan appointment to the post of Housekeeper,becauseshedoesnotpossessthe qualifications requiredbytheschemeofservice. 2. In accordance with section 3
(2)of Law 32/81, which 15 providesfortheappointmentofCasualEmployeestoorganic posts'theappointmentofacasualemployeetoasuitablepost inthepublicserviceonthebasisofsub-section
(1)ismadeif the employee possesses the qualifications required by the schemesofservicefor thepostallocatedtohim." 20 Theapplicant filed thepresentrecoursechallengingtheabove decision.Anapplicationfiledbycounselforapplicantforamendmentofthetitle,prayer,groundsoflawandfactsoftherecourse, was dismissed by me. (See Kkeli v. The Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R.2030)for thereasonsstatedtherein. 25 Counselforapplicantarguedthattheappointmentofother officers, whowerecarryingoutthesamedutiesastheapplicant,to thepostofHousekeeperandthenon-appointmentoftheapplicant to such post, results to a discrimination against the applicant. Counsel also claimed that the post of Housekeeper was never 30 abolishedinfact, butwasonlyrenamed.Healsoarguedthatthe respondentsfailed toselectthebestcandidateforappointmentand thattheapplicantissuperiortothoseappointedregardingqualificationsandpreviousservice. 1620 3C.L.R. KkelivlRepublic SavvidesJ. Counsel·for therespondentsraisedthe preliminary*objection thatthesubjudicedecision isnotanexecutory one andtherespondentsdonottake,anypartintheappointmentorpromotion^ ofpublicofficers anddidnottakeanydecisioninthematter.Al5 ternatively, he argued thatwhen the post of Housekeeper was abolishedandrenamedtothatofinstitutionalAssistants,thetitle of the post of the applicant was not changed due to amistake whichwaslatercorrectedbyletteroftheDirectorof theDepartmentofSocialServiceswhoemplacedtheapplicanttothepost of' 10 InstitutionalAssistantretrospectively,asfromthe1stNovember, 1979.Counsellastlyarguedthattheapplicantwasnotincludedin thelistofthoseofficers whoweretobeappointedtothepostof Housekeeperwhichwaspreparedbytherespondentsandsentto' thePublicService-Commission,becauseshedidnotpossessthe 15 qualifications requiredbytheschemeofserviceforthepost,and morespecifically "fouryears'attendanceinaschoolofsecondary • education". Ishalldealwiththepreliminaryobjection first. : ' The-properorganundertheLawtoeffect appointmentsorpro20 motionsisthePublicServiceCommission.Inthepresentcasethe applicantwasnotappointedtothepostofHousekeeper,byvirtue of theprovisions of Law-32/81,for the simplereason thather namewasnotincludedinthelistofthose-tobeappointedwhich wassubmittedbytherespondentstothePublicServiceCommis• 25 sion.Uponherinquiryshewasinformed bytherespondentsthat thereason shewasnotincluded inthelistwasbecauseshedid notpossessthequalifications required bytheschemeof service for thepost.Sinceitwasasaresultofthisactionoftherespondentsthattheapplicantwasnotappointedandthisactioncreateda 30 legalsituationasfar astheapplicantisconcernedwhich affected herinterestIfind thatthisactisanexecutoryoneinthecircumstances. i Iwillnowproceedtoconsiderthecaseonitsmerits.Noques35 tion ofcomparisonoftheapplicantwithanyothefofficer arises here sincetheappointment orpromotionof otherofficers is riot 1621 Savvides J. Kkeli v. Republic
(1988)challenged by this recourse. Theonly point tobeconsidered is whetheritwas reasonably opentotherespondentstoexcludethe applicantfromthelistof thoseeligiblefor appointmenttothepost of Housekeeper. Thepositionregardingtherelevantpostisconfused. Although 5 reference is madetoadecision of theMinistries of Financeand LabourandSocial Insurance, datedthe2ndJuly, 1979,by which thepost of Housekeeper was abolished andrenamed to Institu tionalAssistant,noexplanation was furnished, by eitherside, as tohowthispostcameinexistence again. Inanyevent,intheab- 10 senceofanyevidence andhavingregardtothe principleofgood andproperadministration Iwillconsiderthispostashavingbeen inexistence atthetimeof thesubjudicedecision andIwillpro ceedonthis assumption. Section 3
(1)of Law 32/81,towhich reference is madein the 15 subjudice decision, as amended by Law 15/82 reads, as far as relevant,asfollows: "3.
(1)Κατάπαρέκκλισινεκτωνδιατάξεων...παςέκτα κτοςυπάλληλοςτελών ενυπηρεσίακατάτην ημερομηνίαν θεσπίσεωςτουβασικούνόμου,τηρουμένωντωνδιατάξεων 20 τωνεδαφίων
(2)και
(3),διορίζεταιυπότηςΕπιτροπήςΔη μοσίαςΥπηρεσίαςαπότηςημερομηνίαςδημοσιεύσεωςτου βασικούνόμουειςκατάλληλονθέσινεντηδημοσίαυπηρε σία συμφωνως προς τας διατάξειςτων περί Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας Νόμωντου 1967έως 1981καισυμφωνωςπρος 25 τουςυπότουΔιευθυντούτηςΥπηρεσίαςΔημοσίαςΔιοική σεωςκαιΠροσωπικούετοιμασθένταςκαιδιαβιβασθησομένουςπροςτηνΕπιτροπήνΔημοσίαςΥπηρεσίας πίνακας. AndthetranslationinEnglish: . ("3.-(l) Notwithstanding theprovisions... any casual em- 30 ployeebeingintheserviceonthedateof theenactmentof the principallaw, subjecttotheprovisionsof sub-sections
(2)and
(3)isappointedby thePublicServiceCommissionasfromthe 1622 3C.L.R. Kkeli v.'Republic Savvides'J:' ; 5 " dateof publication of theprincipal-law tba suitable posrin'the public serviceinaccordancewith theprovisionsof thePublic Service Laws 1967 to 1981 and in accordance with thelists *^prepared'and'submitted tothePublic Service Commission by •theDirectorof thePublic Administration andPersonnel Ser vice.") Sub-section
(2)of thesamesectionreadsas follows: 10 "
(2)Ο δυνάμει του εδαφίου
(1)διορισμός εκτάκτου υπαλλήλουειςκατάλληλονθέσινεντηδημοσίαΥπηρεσία γίνεταιεάνουπάλληλος έχηταυπότων σχεδίων υπηρε σίαςτηςπροςαυτόναπονεμουμένηςθέσεωςπρονοούμενα προσόντα...". Andthe translationinEnglish: 15 20 25 30 ("
(2)Theappointment,onthebasisof sub-section
(1)of a casual employee toasuitable post in thepublic serviceis ef. fected if theemployee has thequalifications required by the schemes of servicefor theposttowhich heisappointed.") Itis thecase for therespondents thattheapplicantwas notin cluded in thelist as she does notpossess thequalifications required by the schemes of service for the post in question and more specifically thatof afour years' attendanceat a school oi SecondaryEducation. Itis theapplicant's allegation thatshecompletedthe4thgrade of thegymnasium andthatall certificates werecontainedinher filewhich was left behindatFamagusta,asaresultof theTurkish invasion. Shewas given,however, theopportunity toadduceany otherevidence tothiseffect but she was unable todoso.In the absence of anyevidence Icannotfind asafact thattheapplicant didinfact completethe4thgradeof theGymnasium.As aresult, onthebasisof thematerial before me, which was alsobefore the respondents,Ifind thatitwas reasonably opentotherespondents toreachthesubjudice decision,inthecircumstances. "1623