(1988)1988August31, [A.LOIZOU.P.] INTHEMATTERAOFARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION 1.STYLIANOS KOUMIDES, 2.LOIZOS PACHIS, 3.ADAMOSADAMOU, 4. PANAYIOTIS CHRISTOPHOROU, Applicants, v. THEGRAINCOMMISSION OFCYPRUS, Respondent. (CaseNo. 850/87). The Grain Commission of Cyprus—Promotions—Scheme of service— Interpretationandapplicationof—Judicialcontrol—Principlesapplicable— Courtwill not interfere ifon thebasisof thewordingofthescheme the interpretationgiventoitbytheappointingorganwasreasonablyopentosuch organ. Time within which to file a recourse—Promotions—Combined establishment—Rejection of an applicationfor applicant'spromotion—it is notan · instanceof.a continuing omission—Recourse filed after expiration of 75 daysasfromsuchrejection—Outof time. Thefacts of this case sufficiently appear inthejudgment of theCourt. 10 Therecourse as far asapplicants 1and2areconcerned wasfiled after the expiration of 75 days as from theday when thedecision concerning their applicationstobepromoted intheupperpartofacombined establishment. Asregardsthemeritsoftherecourse,itsoutcome dependedon thequestion whethertherespondents interpreted andapplied therelevantschemeof ser- 15 viceinamannerreasonably opentothem. Recoursedismissed. No orderastocosts. 1692 5 3 C.L.R. Koumides &Others v. Grain Commission' Casesreferredto: Vafeadesv. TheRepublic, 1964C.L.R.454; Georghiadesv. TheRepublic
(1967)3CX.R.653; ConstantinouandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1976)3CLR.860; 5 7Λ>ΗΛ/αίandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1985)3CX.R.784r Papapetrouv. TheRepublic, 1R.S.C.C. 61; Aivaliotis v. TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R. 149; Petsas v.77«!Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 60. Recourse. 10 Recourseagainst theomission and/or "silent refusal" of there spondent topromotetheapplicantstothepost ofAccounting Of ficer,GradeII: A. S. Angelides, for theapplicants. _ • · C. Velaris, for the respondent. 15 ^ 25 Cur.adv. vult. A. LOIZOU P.read thefollowingjudgment. Thefour appli cantschallenge theomission and/or "silentrefusal" of therespon dentGrain Commission topromotethefour applicantsonthe 1st August 1985,1stSeptember 1985,1stDecember 1986,andthe 1stApril 1987,respectively tothecombinedpostof Accounting Officer Grade.II, andseek a declaration that what wasomitted ought tohavebeen done. , . All applicantshold the postof Accounting Officer GradeΠΙ which isacombinedpost with thatof AccountingOfficer Grade Π.TheSchemeof Service of Accounting Officer Grade Π (Ap pendix A),sets outtherequired qualifications inparagraph
(1), 1693 . A. Loizou P. Koumides & Others v. Grain Commission
(1988)thereofandinaNotetheretothreeexceptionsaresetoutin three separateparagraphs. By itsparagraph
(3)it is provided that"monthlyemployees, servingonthe 1st October 1981, inthe postof Accounting Offi cerGradeΙΠ may bepromotedafter thecompletionof afiveyear 5 service, prior service of Storekeeper GradeII until the 31st March, 1982,is deemedas serviceof Accounting Officer Grade ΠΙfor thepurposes of completingthefiveyearsinthepostofAc countingOfficer GradeΙΠ. Itisonthisparagraph thatthefour applicantsrely. Theyclaim tohavecompletedthefiveyearsserviceandthereforetheyareeli gibleforpromotion. 10 Applicant No. 1,wasfirstappointedonthe 1st October 1976 as a Storekeeper Grade III andwas promotedtothepost of Ac counting Officer GradeIIIonthe 1st November 1983. On the 15 23rdOctober 1985,hesubmittedanapplicationfor promotionto thepostof Accounting Officer GradeIIrelyingonparagraph
(3)of theNotehereinabove referred to,which was refused. Onthe 3rdSeptember 1987,hesubmitted asimilar applicationbasedon thesamereasons without, inthe meantime,anynewfacts coming 20 into existence, which was again refused. This decision dismis singhisapplicationis subject of thepresentrecourse. Applicant No.2 wasfirstappointedonthe 1st October 1976, as Storekeeper Grade III.Hewas promotedtoAccounting Offi cer GradeIIIon the 1st December 1983. Onthe 25th October 25 1985, heapplied like theprevious applicant andhisapplication was likewiserefused. Onthe30thJuly, 1987, heapplied afresh onthesamegroundswithoutinthemeantimeanynewfactscom ing intoexistence andhis application was again refused, hence thepresentrecourse. Applicant No.3was appointedasaMessenger GradeIIon the 1stMay,1973.Hewas promotedtoStorekeeperGradeHIon the 1stJune 1974.Histitlewas automaticallychangedtoStorekeeper 1694 30 3 C.L.R. Koumides & Others v. Grain'Commission A. Loizou P. 5 10 15 20 25 GradeIIonaccountof therestructuringandreorganizationofthe serviceonthe1stJanuary 1979.Hewas promotedtoAccounting Officer GradeΠΙon'the1stMarch,1985.Onthe9thJuly, 1987, He submittedanapplicationforpromotiontothepostofAccounting Officer GradeII, on thebasis of paragraph
(3)of the Note whichwas refused, hence thepresentrecourse. ', Applicant No. 4,wasfirst appointedas aStorekeeper Grade ΙΠ onthe2ndJanuary 1978.Hispostwas automaticallychanged toStorekeeperGradeIIonaccountof therestructuringandreor ganization of theservice onthe 1st January
- Hewaspro motedtoAccounting Officer GradeΙΠ onthe1stJuly
- On the3r<i September 1987,hesubmitted anapplicationforpromo tiontothepostof AccountingOfficer GradeIIorithebasisofthe saidparagraph
(3)of theNotewhich was refused andthisdeci sionof therespondentGrainCommissionis thesubject of thisre course. Therecourse of applicants No. 1and No.2 are putof time, thatis theseventy-five daystimeprescribed byArticle 146
(3)of theConstitutionas therewas arejection of theirapplication and theredoesnotariseahinstanceof anomission,that isof acontin uing omission.There was adecision takenrefusing to promote them,therefore itcannotbesaidthatitamountsalsotoan omis siontodothesame'thing (SeeinteraliaVafeadesv. TheRepublic 1964 C.L.R. 454). ' '* Theactof denying theapplicants therighttopromotion was containedinthelettersentto,thembytherespondentGrainCommission onthe31st October 1985,inreply totheirrespectiveap plications. .'.-*' 30 35 infact theirsubsequentapplicationsledtoconfirmatory,actsof theprevious ones andnottonewexecutory acts,therebeingno newelementsthatcouldchangethesituationasitexisted before theapplications wererejected by theletterof the 31st October 1985. Their recourse therefore should be dismissed on that ground. Ishall, however,proceed,"toexamine theirrecourse on. 1695 » A. Loizou P. Koumides &Others v.Grain Commission
(1988)themeritsalong with thatoftheremainingtwoapplicants. Thecasefortheapplicantsonthemeritsisthat the respondent GrainCommissiondidnotcarryoutadueinquiryregardingtheir qualifications anddidnotapply theSchemeofService andthe Law properly. Insupport ofthe aforesaid proposition reference 5 was madetothecases ofGeorghiades v.The Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 653;Constantinou andOthers v.TheRepublic
(1976)3 C.L.R. 860;Tsountas and Anotherv. TheRepublic
(1985)3 C.L.R.784;where atp.7911 said thefollowing: "In thelight of theabove andintheabsence of any refe- 10 renceintheminutesoftheCommitteeastothe construction of theschemeofserviceinquestionandthe absenceofanyindi cationastohow theyevaluated thequalifications ofthisappli cant,Ifind thattheydid notconductthe necessary inquiryinto thequalifications oftheapplicantandthesubjudice decision 15 mustbeannulledforlack ofdueinquiry." In ordertocomplete thefactual aspect of thecase itmaybe addedherethatuntilthe31st December1978,thepostofStore keeperGrade IIIwasafirst entrypost. From thatpostsomeone could bepromotedeithertoStorekeeperGradeΠ orAccounting 20 Officer GradeΙΠ anduntilthatdateboththeselasttwopostswere inaccordancewith therespective SchemesofService, equivalent andtheholderofanyoneofsuchposts couldbepromotedto the immediately higherpostofAccountingOfficer GradeII.Aboveit thereweretheposts of Accounting Officer GradeI,and Store- 25 keeperGradeI,which werebetween them alsoequivalent. After negotiationswith theTradeUnionstheagreementofthe2nd Oc tober 1982,forrestructuring andre-organization was concluded. Itwasgiven effect retrospectively as from the 1stJanuary1977, andwasapprovedbytheCouncilofMinistersonthe9thDecem- 30 ber 1982 (SeeAppendices "A"and"B" respectively). Inaccordance with theaforesaid agreementthepostofStore keeperGradeΙΠwasabolished anditsholderswereplacedtothe postofStorekeeperGradeΠ.Priorservice tothepostofStore1696 3'C.L.R. Koumides & Others v. Grain Commission A. Loizou P. keeperGradeIIuntilthe31st March,1982,would beconsidered 5 as serviceof Accounting Officers GradeΙΠfor thepurposes of completingfiveyears inthe latterpost.(SeeAppendix "A" para graphs 1.5.2.and 2.6.) 5 ΙΟ 15 20 25 30 35 ' Asclaimed bytherespondentGrainCommission, amere read ingof thesaidprovisions leadsonetotheconclusionthat the pur poseoftheagreementwas torecognizetotheStorekeepersGrade II, who hadalready been promotedtothatpost priortothe 31st December 1978,incontradistinctiontothosewhowereplacedto that postonaccountof therestructuring,therighttobepromoted toAccounting Officers GradeIIinthesameway asthe Account ing Officers GradeΠΙ, thatis after five years of service tothe postof StorekeeperGrade Π. It is clear, learned counsel for the respondent Commission argued,thatStorekeepers GradeΠreferred toinparagraph
(3)of the Note,arethosewhowereStorekeepers GradeIIonthe 31st December 1978,andnotthosewho becameStorekeepersGrade IIonthebasisof theprovisions of theagreement,Appendix "A". In his address inreply, learned counsel for theapplicanthas argued thattheSchemeof Service for thepostof Accounting Of ficer GradeΠ was approvedoneyear after theagreement forthe restructuring and reorganization was put into force, thatis the 21st December 1983,togetherwith theotherSchemesof Service and when it was agiven fact thatas from the 1st January 1979, theredidnotexistthepostof StorekeeperGradeΠ bypromotion, which,post by way of promotion,asheurged,existed onlyuntil the31st December, 1978.Thereference thereforeinparagraph3 of thenotetothatpostbeing heldonthe31st March 1983,refers, heargued,totheserviceof StorekeeperGradeΠ andnot tothose who held thepost by promotionuntilthe31st December 1978. Forthestand of therespondentCommission thatthisparagraphof theSchemeof Service isrelevantthatis torefer onlyto Store keepers GradeΠ withpromotion,whowereintheserviceon the 31st December 1978, tobevalid therelevantparagraph should have madespecial reference for themand should safeguard the 1697 A. Loizou P. Koumides & Others v. Grain Commission
(1988)previous serviceof Storekeeper GradeΠ only untilthe31st De cember 1978 because asfrom the 1stJanuary 1979,theredidnot existanylongerthepostof StorekeeperGradeΠ withpromotion. Tomymindthisis asimplecaseof interpretationand applica tion ofparagraph
(3)of theNoteof theSchemeof Service which 5 says that,officers servingonthe 1st October 1981 inthepostof AccountingOfficer GraieΙΠmaybepromoted after the comple tion of five years of strvice and prior service of Storekeeper GradeΠ until the31st January 1982,isconsidered as serviceof AccountingOfficer GradeΙΠfor thepurposeof completionof the 10 five years service in the post of Accounting Officer Grade III. The words are clear and unambiguous. They have to be given theirordinarymeaningwithouttheadditionof anyotherwords. Theinterpretationof aSchemeof Service iswithinthediscre tion oftheAdministrative Bodyhavingcompetenceinthe relevant 15 process.Andprovided thattheinterpretationgiventoaparticular schemeof serviceby such body onthebasisof its wording is a reasonable onethis Courtin deciding whetherornotsuch body hasconformed withtsuch Schemeof Service,inagivencase, will notgivetosuch scheme adifferent interpretationotherthanthat 20 given toit by such body. (SeePapapetrou v. TheRepublic, 2 R.S.C.C. 61 at p. 69; Aivaliotis v. The Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 149; Petsasv. TheRepublic, 3R.S.C.C.60). Moreover theonusremainsontheapplicanttosatisfy theCourt thatthe ad ministrative bodyinquestionfailed toconsideranyreasonablein- 25 terpretation. In thepresent case theinterpretationwas reasonably opento therespondentGrain Commission andfor thisreason the inter pretation giventoparagraph
(3)of theNotecannotbe interfered withjudicially. For the applicants to be entitled to invoke prior service as Storekeepers GradeΠ,as provided by paragraph
(3)of the said Note,theyshouldhavebeenonthe1stOctober 1981,- thatisthe materialdate-already holding thepostof Accounting Officers 1698 30 3 C.L.R. Koumides & Others v. Grain Commission A. Loizou P. 5 Grade ΙΠ.Theopeningwords of thesaidparagraph provide so. Theapplicantsdonotsatisfy thisrequirementof priorserviceon thematerialdate,asnoneofthemwas thenanAccounting Officer GradeIII,consequently theabridgmentof theperiodforpromotion from Accounting Officer GradeΠΙto Accounting Officer Grade II,as provided by paragraph
(3)of the Note, does not comeintoplay inthecaseof the applicants. Forall theabovereasons therecourseis dismissed butinthe circumstancestherewillbenoorderastocosts. 10 Recourse dismissed. Noorderastocosts. m \ 1699