clr/1988/1988_3_1747.pdf

(1987)3C.L.R.211; .ι- ' . . · . . " t - ι . *J · * ' • . · - - ' · · Nicotaides v.Municipality ofLatsia

(1987)3C.L.R. 1496. 1747 Angelis &Another v. Republic

(1988)Recourse. Recourse against the refusal and/oromission of therespondentstopromotetheapplicantstothepostofLaboratoryAssistant, 1stGrade. A.S.Angeiides, for theapplicants. 5 A. Papasavvas, Senior Counsel of theRepublic, for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDESJ.readthefollowingjudgment.Bythevirtue of the proviso to section 44(l)(a) of the Public Service Law, 10 1967(LawNo.33/67),promotionincasesofoffices withacombinedestablishmentmaybemadeirrespectivelyofwhetherthere is a vacancy in thehigher office or gradeor not, andin accordancewithanygeneraldirectionsgivenbytheCouncilofMinistersinthisrespect. 15 Accordingtogeneraldirections,issuedbytheCouncilofMinisters,promotiontothehigheroffice ispossibleafterthecompletionbytheofficer oftheperiodofservicerequiredbythe relevant schemeofserviceintheloweroffice orgradeandtheHeadofthe Departmentcertifiesthattheofficer: 20 (a)Performed hisduties satisfactorily; (b)Completed theperiodof servicerequiredbytheschemeof service; (c)Satisfiesanyotherrequirementsoftheschemeofservice; and 25 (d)Herecommendstheofficer forpromotion. 1748 3 C.L.R. Angelis &Another v. Republic . :r . ·, t , ' -'.· Stylianides J. '.• '•••• f ';· Λ7 • Thefinaldecision for thepromotionof-theOfficer restson the PublicService Commissioninaccordance'withthelaw^ <κ 0 r 5 10 , 15 20 25 ^Theaboveapplies toallpublicofficers whowereappointed by T • the PubIicService Commissionandtheyservein "offices witha combinedestablishment'.',anexpression defined by law to mean two ormoreseparate offices ortwo ormoregrades of thesame office whichhave acommonestablishment. · . ,The applicants were'appointed on 15thFebruary,'1984 to the postof*"Laboratory Assistant'.''at'theHigherTechnical Institute. -Thatpostcarriedsalary ofithe'scale A5 andΑ7.·< > By thePublic Officers (Restructuring of CertainOffices and Other-Connected Matters)Law, 1984 (Law No.20/84) the'post of Laboratory Assistant wasrenamed"Laboratory Assistant,2nd Grade" with thesame salary-scale A5 and A7 ahd a new post, "Laboratory Assistant,"lst Grade'.',,carrying a salary scale A8, ,was created.Theseoffices were combined.·Law 20/84 hasa ret­ rospective operationfrom 1stJanuary, 1984. '' '"*; · On 8thMay,-1984,therespondentCommissioninformedthe applicantsthatthetitleof'theposttheywereholdingwasreplaced by "Laboratory Assistant, 2nd Grade", with effect* 1st1January, 1984. ' . : . . : , - . ·. · , '• On 9th,May, 1985 by.Decision of the Councilof Ministers 25.772, a schemeof service was approved for theoffice of La­ boratoryAssistant; 1stGrade.-whichis,*as-wesaid earlier,apost combinedwith thatof the2nd Grade.Therequired qualifications are,atleast,15years service atthepostof Laboratory Assistant, 2ndGrade;.outofwhich atleastthreeyears onscale A7. ^ ' • '_,- : :· . •„' · \ . ' . *it ·"• • • , ,There is amote, however, to this scheme of service which r readsasfollows:r.v · ' ·•'· · ' * r ' · ·•' ' 30 "Σημ.:Υπάλληλοι πουυπηρετούσανκατάτηνημερομη­ νίαεγκρίσεωςτουπαρόντοςΣχεδίουΥπηρεσίαςδύνανται 1749 Stylianides J. Angelis & Another v. Republic

(1988)να προαχθούν με 3ετή τουλάχιστον υπηρεσία στη θέση Βοηθού Εργαστηρίου2ης Τάξηςστην Κλ. Α7, ή/καιΒοη­ θού Εργαστηρίου.Οόρος 'υπάλληλοι' περιλαμβάνεικαι πρόσωπα πουυπηρετούσανπάνω σεέκτακτηβάσηήΛιαι με σύμβαση,ηυπηρεσίατους όμως θαυπολογίζεται από 5 την ημερομηνίαδιορισμούτους απότην ΕπιτροπήΔημό­ σιαςΥπηρεσίας στηνοργανικήθέση." Theapplicant 1wasemplaced onscaleA7 on 1stApril,

1. On 27th February, 1987, theActing Director of the Higher Technical Institutesubmitted recommendation ontheprescribed form forthepromotionofthisapplicant tothepostofLaboratory Assistant,1stGrade. 10 TherespondentCommission on27thMarch,1987 considered thisrecommendation anddecided thatthe applicantdidnotsatisfy theprerequisite ofservicesetoutintheschemeofservice.Their 15 such decision, with itsreasoning, was communicated tothe Act­ ing DirectoroftheHigherTechnical Institutebyletterdated4th April,
2. On 22nd April, 1987, counsel for the applicants sent letterAppendix 8 - requesting therespondent Commission topromote 20 bothapplicants,as they completed thethreeyearsservicerequired by theschemeofserviceon 1st March,
3. On 28th May, 1987, theCommission communicated theirne­ gativeanswer toMr.Angelides'request,duly reasoned, which in effect isarepetitionoftheirdecision of27th March,
4. 25 Hence this recourse, whereby theapplicants pray forthean­ nulmentoftherefusal and/oromission oftheRespondents topro­ motetheapplicants toLaboratory Assistant, 1st Grade, and, fur­ ther, a declaration of the Court that theinterpretation ofthe schemeofservicebytheRespondentsiscontrary tolaw, null and 30 voidwith nolegal effect. 1750 5 3 C.L.R. Angelis & Another v. Republic ..;.·. i· • ' . . * . . 15 20 25 ., 30 ιV . V J Ί Counsel for theapplicants contendedthattherespondent Com­ r mission wrongly anderroneously interpreted the scheme of'ser­ viceandwrongly anderroneously reached the"conclusion that the applicants were holding the post of "Laboratory Assistant, 2nd Grade"andnotthatof "Laboratory Assistant". *'"* 10 Stylianides J. ' , •• ι "' . ; . . -" ι • X >" "- - ' J" · It is well settled that the interpretation and'applicatibri of a scheme of service is within the discretion and power of theap­ pointing Authority. Thepower of this Courtis limited to review­ ing the exercise,of their discretion. So long as their'decision*is one thatis reasonably open,both as a matterof construction of a scheme of service and its application to the situation of candi­ dates,thereis noroom for interference, notwithstanding a differ­ ent opinionon thepart of theCourtJoneitherof thetwo subjects. (See Christoforos G. Petsas and The Republic (Public Service Commission), 3R.S.C.C.60; Papaleontiou v. Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 211, at pp. 220-221, where all the cases'on'the subject are cited; Nicolaides v; Municipality oftatsia,

(1987)3'CL.R. 1496). * . . . · • · • .><v • ' '.!;-*:. An officer who does notpossess the qualifications'prescribed by the schemeof service lacks legitimate interest and is not enti­ tled topursue'a recourse before theAdministrative Court.'"' * •TheCommission interpreted thenotetotheschemeof service of Laboratory Assistant, 1st Grade,as requiring^itlier three years service at the post of Laboratory Assistant, 2nd Gradeon scale A7, or thesame length of serviceatthepostof Laboratory Assist­ ant. Inapplying this interpretationin thesituation of these appli­ cants,they said thatthepost of Laboratory Assistant ceased toex­ ist as from theday that it was replaced by Laboratory Assistant, 2nd,Grade,by Law 20/84, i.e., 1st January, 1984. Both applicants were appointedon15th February, 1984, and therefore their service was at a post of Laboratory Assistant, 2nd Grade. They had noservice atthepost of Laboratory Assistant simpliciter. The interpretationgiven by thePublic Service Commission to thescheme of service, thatitrequired threeyears service either as 1751 Stylianides J. Angelis & Another v.Republic

(1988)Laboratory Assistant, 2ndGradeinthescaleA7,orasLaboratoryAssistant simpliciter -apostthatexistedpriorto 1stJanuary, 1984- wasnot only reasonably open tothem,but,indeed, itis the onlypermissibleone. InthepresentcasetheapplicantswereholdingthepostofLa- 5 boratoryAssistant,2ndGrade.TheirservicewasnotthatofLaboratoryAssistant simpliciter. The applicants served in scale A7 as from 1st April, 1986. Therefore theyhavenotcompletedthethreeyearsserviceinthat scale. 10 The recommendation of theActing Director of the Higher Technical Institute for applicant 1wasmade undermisconception. Therecommendationof theHeadoftheDepartmentisaprerequisite for promotion without selection, under theproviso to 15 section 44(l)(a) of Law 33/67.No such recommendation was madefor applicant No.2,and thisomission,if any,isnotchallengedbythisrecourse. Inthepresentcase,boththeinterpretation andtheapplication of theschemeof service,in thecircumstances,were not,in any 20 way,faulty andthey werereasonably opentotheRespondents. Therecourseisill founded. Intheresult,thisrecoursefails. Itisherebydismissedwithnoorderastocosts. Recoursedismissedwithno 25 orderastocosts. 1752