(1988)1988October17 [A.LOIZOU, P., MALACHTOS, SAVVIDES. PIKIS, KOURRIS, JJ.] THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Appellant-Respondent, v. CHARALAMBOSCHRISTODOULIDESANDOTHERS, Respondents-Applicants. (RevisionalJurisdtctionAppealNo. 773). Public Office—Appointments/Promotions—The PublicService.Law, 1967 (Law33/67), section31
(3), as amended by section2 of Law 31/80— Objectofamendment—Sectionasamendedoverridessection33(b). Public Officers—Appointments/Promotions—Schemeofservice—"University degreeortitleorequivalentdegreeinasuitablesubject,e.g.PublicAdministration, Law,Economic orPoliticalSciences, BusinessAdministration etc"—Subjectsenumerateddonotformagenus—Ejusdemgenerisruleof interpretation inapplicable—English language—Reasonably opento the Commissiontoconsideritasasuitablesubject. AJudgeof this,Courtannulled* thepromotion: (A)Of sixinterested partiesas AdministrativeOfficers on theground thattheyhadnotpassed writtenexaminations,asrequiredbytheschemeofservice,and(B)Oftwo otherinterestedpartiesasAdministrativeOfficers onthegroundthatitwas notreasonablyopentotherespondentsintherecoursetotreat"adiplomain English language"asadiplomaina"suitable"subject withinthemeaning ofthesameschemeofservice. Thesixinterestedpartiesreferred tounder(A)abovewerepriortotheir subjudicepromotionservingtothepermanentpostofAdministrativeOfficeronamonth-to-month basis.Therespondentintherecourseadoptedthe adviceoftheDeputyAttorney-General anddecidedthatinihelightofsection 31
(3)of thePublic ServiceLaw, 1967(Law 33/67),asamendedby section2ofLaw 31/80,thesixpartieswerequalified, notwithstandingthat theyhadnotpassedspecialwrittenexaminations. *
(1987)3C.L.R.2095 1910 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Christodoulides Sub-section 31
(3)read,priortoitsamendment,asfollows: "
(3)Anadvertisementofavacancy inapostshallgivefullparticu lars of therelevant scheme of service and shall specify thedateby whichapplicationsshallbesubmitted." 5 Thesameprovision readsafter itsamendmentasfollows: "
(3)Anadvertisementofavacancy inapostshallgivefullparticu lars of the relevant scheme of service and shall specify thedateby whichapplicationsshall besubmitted. 10 15 ,· 20 "* Provided thatwhenever theadvertised postisapermanentone, the ·* submission of applicationonthepartofofficers who,having beense>! 'lectedandappointedby theCommission,areserving intheposteither onsecondmentorfrom monthtomonthorwhoareservinginatempo rarypostunderthesametideandgoverned by the sameschemesofser viceisriotnecessary".*~ Therelevant qualifications as regards thepromotionof theinterested partiesunder(B)abovereadasfollows: "University Degreeorutleorequivalent qualification inasuitable subject e.g. Public Administration,Law (including Barrister-at-Law) 'EconomicorPolitical Sciences,Business Administrationetc.". ν » Therecourseasagainst theotherinterestedpartiesfailed ontheground thattheapplicantsfailed toestablish striking superiority. Theappeal is directedagainst theannullingpartof theJudgment, The cross-appeal against thedismissal of therecourseasfar assomeof theoth erinterestedpartieswereconcerned. . "> 25 Held,allowing theappealanddismissing thecross-appeal: ' "* «· V 30 J!'' (A) PerSawides, J:,A.Loizou;P.,Malachtos, Pikis andKourris, JJ., < concurring:
(1)ThisCourtcannotagreewiththe interpretationgiven,tosec• tion31
(3)of thePublicService Law,asamended,by thetrialJudge. Prior, to theamendmentmere was no differentiation between candidates who. werenotinthepublicservice andthoseholdingthepostandperformingthe dutiesattachedtheretoonatemporaryorunestablisheb*basis. Theobjectof theamendmentwas safeguarding of theposition.ofthose whowerealready appointedandholdingaposttemporarilyorfrommonth 1911 Republic v. Christodoulides
(1988)tomonthoronsecondment.
(2)TheCross-appeal should bedismissed as therespondents(applicantsintherecourse)failedtoestablishstrikingsuperiority. (B)Per Sawides,J., A.Loizou,P., Malachtos and Kourris,JJ.concurring, Pikis,J. dissenting:ThetrialJudge,asregards thematterof the _ DiplomainEnglishlanguagewasconcerned,treatedthesubjects,expressly referred tointheschemeof serviceas forming a"genus"andappliedthe "ejusdemgeneris"ruleofinterpretation, However,theaforequoted partoftheschemeofserviceprovidesfora universitydegreeordiplomaina"suitablesubject"andthenproceedsonto 10 enumeratevariousexamples.Theexamplesenumeratedarenotindicativeof agenusbuttheyaremerelyanenumerationofvariousexampleswhichare notexhaustive,concerningthesuitabilityofasubject, InthecircumstancesitwasreasonablyopentotheCommissiontotreat Englishlanguageasasuitablesubject. 15 Appealallowed. Cross-appealdismissed. Casesreferredto: Frangoulides andAnotherv. The Public Service Commission
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1683; 20 Republic v.Xinari
(1985)3C.L.R. 1922; DerParthogv.CyprusBroadcastingCorporation
(1984)3CLR.635; Christoudiasv.Republic
(1985)3C.L.R. 512. Appeal. Appeal against thejudgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Demetriades, J.) given on the 21st December, 1987 (Revisional Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 145/83, 156/83, 190/83 and 279/83)*whereby the decision of the respondents - appellants to promote theinterested parties to thepost of Administrative Officer waspartly annulled. * Reported in
(1987)3 CLJi.
- 1912 25 30 3 C.L.R. Republic v.Christodoulides Ν.Charalambous, Senior Counselof theRepublic, for,theap, pellants. - .^ >T ,. ; , ,r, • t. •· ;*·.·'. t " - ' " ' - • > r/A· u • . ' * ' • r J • - " ' · , . V ' . C.Loizou, for respondent. , , \,i •• t V ! ,p, . , Λ.
- Angelides, for interested parties P.Pikrides,Y. Mallourides,L.Athanassiou, Chr.K.Loizou andR.Koutsiou. 5 „ . . - , · y.liu;. .3«.::.vri! c ./c r.' " ·. . . . P ^ ^ V " " · A.LOIZOU,P.:Thejudgment of theCourt (A..Loizou„Mallachtos,Sawides,Kourris)will,bedelivered by Mr:Justice Savvides,Mr.JusticePikiswilldeliver.a.separatejudgment.,Λ , ί\ in 1U -4.;ί 7 ( ' t ' " " -*; <"in '- •'*' ' ; r ' ^ J J Γ ti 7 ' 15 U · ! •'· ft'·' . . r ' • '.< t»." •* * v'-tu . ^SAVVIDES.J.: This is anappeal^ the Republic.of^Cyprus ,Vespon^^ y ^against thatpartof th?judgmentof aJudgeof this.Couhsitting in thefirstinstance,whereby heannulledthe.promotionofeightout M'' . • ' ·.. , \i C( J*. • Jl ι ". ' .ΤΓ· · • · -J' . J *? ι ti • of 35interestedparties.thepromotionof whom was beingchallenged by the'respbndents'inthis appeal,and,otherapplicantsby .separaterecourseswhichwere heardtogether. :. ., . t r„ , fT ' : ' "* J '.· ', i v j f . r . •ί '.'!• 1 _·•. * ;. I'lfoi *1 -ΓΓ >' ) ' t! )! Oneof theapplicantsinrecourseNo. 145/83 namelyapplicant No.3diedprior„to.theconclusionofthe(hearing,andthe.recourse w onhis behalf was withdrawn anddismissed. - ,„ - .,.= . , ,. tn ^ y -9^recourses,the,applicants.werechallenging thepromo tionof 35candidates(theinterestedparties)to-thepostof,Administrative Officer which was decided by therespondent Commission and,waspublished in theofficial GazetteNo. 1845 of 4th March, 1983,underNotifications416 and
- fr ι* Κ z *' Thefacts whichprecededthetakingof thesubjudicedecision areas follows: By letterdatedthe 14thJanuary,1982,theMinistryofFinance requested theappellantCommissiontoproceedwith thefillingof 14vacancies inthepostof Administrative Officer as wellas 22 1913 SawidesJ. Republicv.Christodoulides
(1988)consequential vacancies in the same post. The vacancies were published in the official Gazetteof the Republic dated the5th February, 1982,andthematterwasreferred totheDepartmental Committee which was set upfor thepurpose and which,byits reportsubmittedbyletterdatedthe24thMay,1982,recommend- g ed 100candidatesforthepostsinquestion. Theappellant Public ServiceCommission atitsnextmeeting datedthe 11thJune, 1982,noticedthatthosecandidatesserving in thepermanent post of Administrative Officer on amonth to monthhadnotpassedthespecialwrittenexaminationrequiredby IQ paragraph 3
(4)of theschemeof serviceanddecidedtoseekadviceasto whether they couldbeconsidered asqualified candidatesforthepostsinviewofthefact thattheypossessed,atthe timeof their appointment to these posts, thequalifications requiredbytheschemesof servicewhichwereinforceatthetime ,c of theirappointment, wherenoprovision wasmadefor success in thespecial examination. TheDeputy Attorney-General, bya letterdatedthe3rdJuly, 1982,advisedtheappellantthatthesaid candidatescouldbeconsideredasqualified althoughtheyhadnot passedthespecialexaminations,inviewoftheprovisionsofsection 31
(3)ofthePublicServiceLawasamendedbyLaw31/80. Atitsmeetingdatedthe8thJuly, 1982,theappellantadopting theadviceof theAttorney-General*s Office, decidedtoconsider " theabovecandidates asqualified andtoinvitethemtoaninterview,AtsomelaterstagetheCommissiondecided,afterexaminingtheresultof thewrittenexaminations,tocallfor aninterview alsocertain othercandidates whowerenotrecommended bythe Departmental Committee, amongst whom applicants Vassilia Kyrmitsi and Costas Papasawas, as well as interested parties Vassilios Vassiliou and Tasoula HadjiProdromou:Kokkinotri- 30 mithiotou,thelatteraftercertainexplanationsweregiven byher and theDirector-General of theMinistry of Agriculture, where shewasserving,regardingherphyschologicalstateat thetimeof herinterviewwiththeDepartmentalCommittee. After thecompletion ofthepersonalinterviews,theappellant 35 1914 3 C.L.R. •7\ * Republic v. Christodoulides . .i ι · i< > n . . * . - u·* • , V. Sawides J. •'·· •>" > heard,at its meeting of the 16th October, theevaluation of theDir ; rectofof theDepa^ment a's tothe'peffoimanc tne'cancliaates during the interviews,' aridproceede'aV dn'the*2rid'November, r 1982, tb'its own*evaluation of thTcandidates and thesefectionTor J at rj appointmentof 36'candidates. - *'^ * '"" ' 0* -•*- V •* 5 J, , ,0 Jl Ί 15 Af its meetingj'which took place on the 2ncf DecemberJ'1982, the'app31ant'decided~to'offer appointment to 35 of tnose'cahdir c Y dates, leavin'g the mattef'ofHhe~^ppoimme^ party Ross'idouVbpen'lintil fuVtheY information*was received-frofn'the ;a J f X f Chief of PoliceTegar^nYhefcharacter; · / I ' / ' ^ *> , 5ήν νί9ωυ,?ϊι.'ϊΓ,Γ^'3ν.^νΓθτ^ι^ίο »·Λ νωΧι* <*ι.πο "ο:; ** Ji In view of th'efact'that two of the^ndidaTe^'did notaccept the offer,of-appointmentj theappellant<metagain anddecided to offer appointment to Charalambos Kapsos and promotion to Kyprbs Manoullos. The appointment/promotion of these 35 interested parties (as from\tftTlst.February\o983)·^ zeuF6flHe"lRepublicTdated-^h>4th'lClarch,;!1983> asa'reYulTof which recourse No. 145/83 was filed together wittfothePrecdurses challenging such promotions. .VOJ4.·τ)ν3; *3Jt)iO ;• ^ e·',JIBUTI3 ι" t,t%^:to ιτΛ \υ υυ*' 20^£ ^Th^appellant^ thaTwritten examihatibhs were^nbt'requiredYor certain candidates wrTo'wefe^HoldingJ'the post"oriftemporary^basis relied on-the''advice'of th'eDeputy Attorney-General which was based bn-tfie inte^retati6n/of?sur?-sectidn'
(3)fbf 'section lof'tHe'Public^Service 25'<r Law, 1967 (Law 33 of 1967) as amenderJ^By sectio7if-2v*ofJliaw 31/80. v\S5Ti ils'l^fi^ nt r. .ut:''FZTI ·^ u Section 31,as amended,provides as follows: γνη*ϊ tn?i i v> J«ioq \ο:ι. * JITMHs r.i 'i?fii:-r'v A £π ί£",) 30 ^o?3!ί3ΐί».ϊ'(ί,)ΐκενίί θέσΓςΉρώχου'Λώρισ'μ'ού'ή κενή θεσις Πρώτου Διορισμού και Προαγωγής δημοσιεύεται εις'την επίσημον εφημερίδατης Δημοκρατίας. * ·'*Νοείται ότι ουδεμίατοιαύτηδημοσίευσιςγίνεται'έις πε1915 Sawides J. Republic v. Christodoulides
(1988)ρίπτωσιν πληρώσεως τοιαύτηςκενής μονίμου θέσεωςδημιουργηθείσης έναντι ή συνεπεία καταργήσεως ή αντικα ταστάσεωςετέραςαντιστοίχουπροσωρινής θέσεως οπότεη Επιτροπή πληροί την θέσιν ταύτην δια του διορισμού ή προαγωγής,ως θαήτο ηπερίπτωσις,του υπαλλήλου του j υπηρετούντος ήδηεις τηνούτωκαταργηθείσανπροσωρινήν θέσιν και οσάκις ο αριθμός των ούτω δημιουργηθείσων θέσεων είναι μικρότερος του αριθμούτων αντιστοί χωνπροσωρινών θέσεων τινέςτωνοποίωνκαταργούνται ηΕπιτροπή πληροί ταςθέσεις ταύταςκατ' επιλογήν μετα ξύτωνυπαλλήλωντωνυπηρετούντωνειςταςπροσωρινός θέσεις καιουδέποτε ετέρουυπαλλήλου υπηρετούντος επί αποσπάσειήαπόμηνός εις μήναειςυφισταμένην μόνιμον ιδίαν θέσιν.
(3)Δημοσίευσις κενής θέσεως παρέχει πλήρη στοιχεία τουσχεδίου υπηρεσίαςκαικαθορίζειτηνπροθεσμίανυπο βολήςαιτήσεως. Νοείται ότι οσάκις η δημοσιευομένη θέσις είναι μόνι μος δεν είναι αναγκαία η υποβολή αιτήσεως εκ μέρους 20 υπαλλήλων οίτινες, επιλεγέντες καιδιορισθέντες υπότης Επιτροπής, υπηρετούν εις την θέσιν είτε επί αποσπάσει είτε από μηνός εις μήναήοίτινες υπηρετούνεις προσωρινήν θέσιν υπότον αυτόντίτλον και διεπομένην υπό των αυτώνσχεδίων υπηρεσίας." 25 andthetranslation inEnglishreads: ("31.-
(1)A vacancy in a First Entry post or a First Entry andPromotionpost shallbeadvertisedintheofficial gazetteof theRepublic. Provided thatnosuch advertisement takesplace inthecase of thefillingof such vacant permanentpostcreated intheplace of oras aresultof theabolition or substitution of anothercor1916 30 3 C.L.R. Republic v.Christodoulides Sawides J. respondingtemporarypostinwhichcasethe Commissionfills such post by theappointment orpromotion,as thecasemay be, of the officer already serving in the temporary post so abolished andif thenumberof theposts socreatedis smaller thanthenumberof thecorrespondingtemporaryposts someof whichareabolished the Commissionfills thesepostsby selec tion between theofficers serving inthetemporary postsand any other officer serving on secondment or on a month to monthbasisinanexistingsamepermanentpost 10
(3)An advertisement of avacancy inapost shall givefull particularsof therelevant schemeof serviceandshall specify thedateby whichapplicationsshall besubmitted. 15 20 25 30 Provided_thatwhenever theadvertised postis apermanent one, the submission of applications on the'.part of officers who,having beenselected andappointedby the Commission, areservingintheposteitheron secondmentorfrom monthto monthorwhoareservinginatemporarypost underthesame titleandgovernedby thesameschemesof serviceisnot neces- .,»ΡΑ -,,,,Ο , ... ,,,, ., ,. ι „..,...„,.«, The learned trialjudge indealing with thefirst issue before him which concernedthe'interpretation"of sub-section 3'of s.31 of Law 33/67asamendedbyLaw 31/80andthequestionwheth erthe*six candidateswho'were already servingontemporarybasis inthesamepermanentpostsorservingin'correspondingabol ished posts hadtosatisfy theconditioninthescheme'of service requiring written examinations of the candidates found'as follows: "The proviso tosubsection
(3)concernsvacancies inper' manentposts whichbecamevacantfor anyotherreason(and τ . notas aresult of theabolition of othercorrespondingperrna',nehtposts and thecreationof newpermanentpostsinsubstitu tion). Insuch a case thevacancies have tobe advertised but 1917 Sawides J. Republic v. Christodoulides
(1988)thosealready servinginthe posts donothavetosubmitappli cations butareautomatically considered ascandidatesforap pointmentorpromotion. TheadviceoftheDeputyAttorney-Generalwas totheeffect 5 that the provision in theproviso tosection 31
(3)that officers already serving inthepost,eitheron secondmentetc.,areex emptedfrom submitting applicationsandarethusautomatically consideredas candidates,does notreconcilewith the require ments thatthey should also possessthequalifications for ap- 10 pointmenttothepost.This,intheDeputyAttorney-General's view,affords adeviation tosection 33 which provides that no person is appointed in a post in thepublic service unless he possesses thequalifications enumeratedintheschemeof ser vice for the specific post, andany otherinterpetation of the γ$ proviso would havebeenunjust tothoseofficers whosequali fications would havetobeconsideredfor asecond time.' I thinktherehasbeen amisunderstandinginthisrespect on the partof counsel for therespondent.Theinterested parties 20 whoareaffected by thisgroundare: 1) Yiannakis Mallourides, 2) Lenia Orphanidou,3) Michael Parellis, 4) Panikkos Pikrides,'5) Koutsiou Amphitriti Rosana and 6) Telemachos Georghiades.These interested parties, as it appears from the . listsof officers,which weresenttothe DepartmentalCommit- 25 tee (Appendix 4B), are 'officers holding thetemporary posts of Administrative Officer'. So,therefore, even according to counsel's own interpretation,they'Hadtosatisfy the require mentsof theschemeof service, includingparagraph3
(4). Reverting back totheinterpretationof theproviso, Ihold 39 ' theview'thatthewords 'serving in thepost eitheronsecondment'or'from month'tomonth'refer tothepermanentpost, in contradistinction with the lastpartof theproviso which refers 1918 ft . . ' 3C.L.R. · . Republic v. Christodoulides " • " Sawides J. tocorresponding temporary posts. Although Iaminclinedto agree with counsel for therespondentthatthewords 'gover nedby thesameschemesof service* refer only tothelastpart of theproviso,Idonotintendtomakeafinding atthisstagein viewof thefact, asIsaid earlier,thatthecaseof the,sixinter ested parties concernedfalls within this last pan andtaking, also/intoconsiderationthatthisproviso Has, inthe meantime, beenrepealed by Law 10/83.Obviously the words'governed by thesameschemeof service* apply atleast tothose officers holdingacorrespondingtemporarypostandcovers thecaseof toe six interestedpartiesconcerned. ", * ' 5 ,Q \ '· * * t ' 1' , Bethatasitmay,I dbnot agree with theview that the pro visionsofthisprovisoareeitherihconflict orcanoverridethe provision of section33(c)thatnopersoncanbeappointedin a post unless hepossesses the qualifications requiredhy the schemesofservicefor thepostinquestion.",. ,*. -' . uj : · •* • r · '• '* i<> . i. Ί .· As aresult of his above conclusion heannulledthe appoint ment orpromotionof theaforesaid six candidates. ;' 9n ThelearnedtrialJudgethenproceededtoexaminethequestion whether in thecase of two candidates,interestedpartiesLoucas Athanassiou andChrystalleni Kouta,theDiplomainEnglishLite rature of meUniversity of Salonica which'they possessed satis fied paragraph3
(1)of thescheme"of servicefor thepost. f , '- * - I- · (f • ' • '•< . Paragraph3
(1)of thesaid schemereadsasfollows: 25 "Πανεπιστημιακόν Δίπλωμαήτίτλος ή ισότιμον προ σόν ειςκατάλληλόνθέμαπΐχ.-τηνΔήμοσίανΔιοΙκησιν, τα "*Νομικάπεριλαμβανομένουτου (BaiTu^^lJiw),ja^pLκ'ονομικαςήΠολιτικώς Επιστήμας,τηνΔιόΐκήσΐν Επιχει ρήσεωνκ.λπ." " r . ._ .' .r . ΐ . . θ " - . *-»il ι •' \~ ';'" '• "!**•0 „ · ! ' ,<- '30 I f f / • '- • ' Γ Ί{|' ι ,: " >' ; - : . ' - ' - ' ' ( *} \ [ " ( , *4 ^ / ' i."'- 1 , ]*. -- ' \f* V. \ ; ' 6"ν» J , -" ' * V.V' f Γ Χ -' " ' ('Omversity Degreeor/titleor'equivalent qualification ina suitable subjecfe.g. Public Aaministranon/Law'iincluding Barrister-at-Law) Economicor political Sciences, Business SawidesJ. Republic v.Christodoulides
(1988)Administrationetc.") The answer of the learned trial Judge to the above question wasasfollows: "If the words 'suitable subject1 appeared on their own, I wouldhaveagreedthatitwasreasonablyopentotherespon- 5 denttoconsidertheDiplomainEnglishLiteratureas satisfying therequirementsofparagraph 3
(1)of theschemeof service. Havingregard,however,tothenatureofthesubjectsenumerated therein, Ifind thatit wasnot reasonably open totherespondent todecideasitdidinthisrespect.The'suitable sub- 10 jects'havetoberelated tothoseenumerated intheschemeof service.Theappointmentofthesetwointerestedpartiesmust, also,asaresult,beannulled." ThelearnedtrialJudge,finally dealtwiththepositionofthe remaining candidates and after ameticulous comparison of their 15 meritswiththoseoftheapplicantscametotheconclusion thatthe applicants inallrecourses before himfailed toestablish striking superiority overtheinterested parties soas tojustify theannulmentofthesubjudicedecision. Asaresultof theabovedecision therespondent Commission 20 filed thepresent appeal challenging that part of thejudgment wherebythepromotion ofeightoftheinterestedpartiesnamely, Mallourides,Orphanidou, M.Parellis,P.Pikrides,R.Koutsiou, Tel.Georghiades,L.Athanassiou andChr.Kouta wasannulled. Thegroundsoflawraisedbycounselforappellantwerethat: 25 (a)ThetrialJudgewronglyconcludedthatinterestedpartiesL. Athanassiou andChrystalleniKoutadidnotpossesstherequired, undertheschemeofservice,diploma; (b)thetrialJudgewronglyannulledthepromotionoftheother sixinterestedpartiesonthegroundthattheydidnotpassthewrit- 30 tenexaminationrequiredbytheschemeofservice. 1920 3 C.L.R. Republic ν:Christodoulides Sawides J/ .Therespondents in·this'appeal by-noticeofcross-appeal chal ; lenged thatpartof thedecision of thetrial Judge dismissing the recourseagainst eightoftheremaininginterestedparties namely: ' . i'+ « :* • · ^ r ι c o„ ' - . . ι, " . *i <-·? ν Ί . Tasoula Kokkmotrim;miotou<HadjiProdromou ^'- ' r 5 ,! (ril ' · ' '-' ' 2.MariaPavlidouLymboura r ** ""* 3.EleniPapaleontiouZanettou 4. Costakis St. Chrysostomou , , tΛ . , . . . M r •5.SofiaLogidouChristodoulidou , a.-," ,f 10 -o.'Georghios'Papageorghiou' ' ' ΠΑ: Λ * l J 7.ChrystostomosHadjiVassiiiou ^ 8.Vasilios.M.Vasiliou. ij- ·': ·•/'•• .' : %i Γ· " ** .' * vi,J: v : J '^ '" " „,. „ „,,, - L * v ' - ' « i ' ΛV"-J' '>'- Λ'.-.i f ' . •''£*.'<*-* •-'·ί·Ιν'•' on theground that he wrongly dismissed therecourseofthe,, applicants-respondentsinthis appeal on theground,that,no,struW mg superiority has beenestablished. ,, , , ·, ,,, τ (~ ,,*-< f ' > li.it j , , • j j •*' .V · 1 ' rf >(ory J ;•, t. , ·,τ, f . j ^ i ,j < / it We shall deal first with theappeal andthen with thecross-, 2Q Thefirst groundofappealconcerns thequestion whetherinter ested parties Loucas Athanassiou andChrystalleni Koutadidsatlsiy theschemeot service concerningthepossession ofadiploma . ina suitable subject . l· r^ Γτ*£» ;*i J V r t , The learned trial Judge asalready mentionedfound thatif.un-, der paragraph 3
(1)of the scheme of,servicethe words,''suitable,,, • subject appearedontheirown,hewould.have agreed that rt,was, reasonably open totheappellanttoconsider theDiplomainEng-,, c lish Literatureassatisfying paragraph 3
(1)of.the schemebut hav-, 0 ing regard tothe.subjects enumeratedthereinhejound thattheDi 7 „ { ploma in English Literature didnotfall-.within thejcategones^. Λ-" enumeratedinparagraph 3
(1).Itisapparentthatthefact thatcer tain suSjects were enumeratedinparagraph'3
(1)'led thelearned -„ trial Judge totreatsuch examples asagenus,and thereforetecided thecase ontheprincipleofejusdem generis rule. 0 fι •ilf.-vHEi^roiM.* 1921-· SawidesJ. Republicv.Christodoulides
(1988)Wefindouselvesunabletoagreewiththeconstructionplaced bythelearnedtrialJudgeonparagraph3
(1).Suchparagraphprovides for a university degreeordiploma in a "suitable subject" andthenproceedsontoenumeratevariousexamples.Theexamplesenumerated arenotindicativeofagenusbuttheyaremerely 5 an enumeration of various examples which are not exhaustive, concerningthesuitabilityofasubject. IthasbeenheldtimeandagainbythisCourtthattheinterpetationandapplicationofaschemeofserviceiswithinthediscretion of the appointing organ and thisCourtcannot interfere if such IQ discretion wasreasonablyexercised. Bearinginmindthecontentsofparagraph 3
(1)ofthescheme of service, as explained above, we find that it was reasonably open totheappellant toconstrue theschemeof serviceand find thatthediplomaofthetwointerestedpersonswasadiplomaina 15 suitablesubject. Theappellant,inconstruing theschemeofservice,construeditasawholebearinginmindalsothedutiesofthe post as set out inparagraph 2.Theappeal,therefore, inthisrespectsucceedsandthesubjudicedecisionontheappellanttothat effect isaffirmed. Wecomenexttoconsiderthepositionoftheothersixinterestedpartieswhosepromotion wasannulledbythetrialCourt. Allsixinterestedpartiespriortotheir appointment/promotion tothesubjudice postof administrativeofficer wereholdingthe temporarypostofAdministrativeOfficer, ThirdGrade,thetitleof 25 which was changed to Administrative Officer since 1.1.1981, whichentailedtheperformanceofthesamedutiesasthoseinthe schemeof servicefor the subjudicepostswhich infact thesix interestedpartiesperformed efficiently. Theyhadbeenappointed tosuchpostbytheappellantsincethefollowingdates: ~» 1.YiannakisMallourides 2.5.78 2.LeniaOrphanidou 2.5.78 3.MichaelParellis 1.3.79 1922 -« 3 CA.R. Republic v. Christodoulides •,4- PanikosPikrides ...... ..Ο:-:'' \ 5:Rozana'Amphitriti Koutsiou . •.- ί 6.TelemachosGeorghiades^ .-„*• '•' 5 Sawides.J: •'., ' ..: I'd'.' ' ;. • . ,· , » .' : ' · ,·. ·• t *: : ; ^ \i.x/y iJ 1.3.79 "' •y-^ .1.3.79 · · · . ' ' The promotionof the aforesaid interestedpartieswas annulled by thetrialCourton theground.thattheydid notsatisfy .the prerequisite underparagraph 4of the schemeofservice which,prch vides"success in.special·written examinationfor the post". - > ., , Thecaseof the aboye,persons rests wholly onthe interpreta tion ofsub-section
(3)of section 31ofLaw 3§/67 asamendedby io sic»f'uw3;iV8o:;,;yVL.^;::;.li;0ii•.;...j^;;v " / j , " " ^ ; Before embarking ontheinterpretationof section 31we have to examine the provisions of s.31 priorto itsamendmentand then proceed totheexamination of the amendmentbrought,about by s.2 ofLaw 31/80.Theoriginal sectionprovided asfollows:, f ' i. 15 •* , , .. , '* . , τ ' ·> l.,^ "' i* P l r _• χ ,I •• > * ' . t ; r ' - '• ι-Γι . ' '-:•*'.'•·;,j . "31
(1)ΚενήθέσιςΠρώτουΔιορισμούήκενήθέσιςΠρώτου ΔιορισμούχαιΠροσταγήςδημοσιεύεται ειςτηνεπίση r μ α εο^μ^ίδα τηςΔημΌκρ^ώ^^ . , , (\ ' *. Ί . ^' ,χ*
(2)20 JL, ' * ' . ! > / . " . ........ :.- .- -.
(3)Δημοσίευόις κενήςθέσεως παρέχει πλήρηστοιχεία τουσχεδίουυπηρεσίαςκαι καθορίζειτηνπροθεσμίαν,υπο βολήςαιτήσεων." (S.31(l)Avacahcyin aFirstEntrypostoraFirstEntryand Promotionpostshallbeadvertised inthe official Gazetteof the Republic. 25 ,
(2),..,...,
(3)An advertisement of avacancy in apost shall give full particularsof trierelevant schemeof serviceandshall specify the dateby which applicationsshall besubmitted."). 1923 SawidesJ. Republicv.Christodoulides
(1988)Asthelaw stood then theappointment of acandidatein the public servicehadtobemadeinaccordancewiththeprovisions ofthelawandprovidedthattheprerequisitessetoutinsection33 of Law 33/67,oneof whichis"possession of the qualifications set out in the schemeof service for the post for which the ap- 5 pointmentistobemade"(s.33(A)),aresatisfied.Thelawdidnot makeanydifferentiation betweencandidateswhowerenotinthe publicserviceandthoseholdingthepostandperforming thedutiesattachedtheretoonatemporaryorunestablishedbasis. S.31of Law 33/67 washoweveramendedbys.2,ofLaw 31 JQ of 1980,reference towhich hasalready beenmade,for thepurposeofsafeguarding thepositionofthosewhowerealreadyappointed and holding apost temporarilyorfrom month tomonth oronsecondment. ThattheObjectoftheamendmentwastosafeguard theposition 15 of thosealready servinginapostunderthesametitle,onatemporarybasis,isclarified further bythenewamendmentbrought aboutbyLaw 10of 1983which'repealedtheprovisostos.31of Law 33/67 introduced byLaw31of 1980and substituted them byanewprovisototheeffect thatinthecaseoffilling ofvacant 2 n permanent posts no publication isrequired in thecase wherea publicofficer isalready servingeitheronamonthtomonthbasis oronsecondmentinapermanentpostbearingthesametitleorin atemporary postunderthesametitleandthatthePublicService Commission may proceed tothefilling ofsuch post'by theappointment,promotionorsecondmentofthepublicofficer already servinginsuchpost. Inthecasewherethenumberof thevacant permanent postsisless than thenumberof those serving'then a selectionismadebytheCommissionfromthosealreadyserving in suchposts. 30 For the purposes however of thepresent appeal wehave to dealwiththeLawasatthetimeoftheappointmentoftheinterestedpartiesandinparticular s.31 ofLaw33/67asamendedbys.
- of Law31/
- 1924 3 C.L.R. el'KRepublic v. Christodoulides Savvides'*J. ; 5 • ffln thelight oftheamendment'brought about'by s'.2*of'Law 3l/ 80 we find.burselves unabletoaccepttheconstructiori'placedoh suchiprovision by-the learned trialJudge and'we find· that'th'e J Public.Service:Gommission"rightly'treated the six candidates as 1 eligiblecandidatesforpromotion:; 'i" '"' ·• ' i'V·; . ι. Ί : ^ - Ι l w 'il jr» ,-^It γ· u v.*, ..ιίίΐΟ'.' ti f-i lit..·... J • W »-" *.'»-' .n Intheresult theappealin thisirespectfalsosucceedsiand theap 1 pointment/promotion of theafore'saidisix'interested'.parties as'ef r fected bylthePublictService Commission isaffirmed.i '" >"- ·"* ,. Όν'3;αίν i - j t n t l o o ' i "«·'i^*i'.w?iu *." '*.» m* ohp 3<ιΐ" :>. ! .· *o : vloWecomenexttoconsiderithecross-appeal.On'thematerial be 10 fore us we agree with thejudgmenrbf thelearned trial'Jtidge that theiresrx>ndents5failed'toiesteblish'striking .'superiority over'the eight interestedparties referred toin 1thecross-appealrand that it was reasonably open tothe appellant in thecircumstancesof the case.todecide'asiit'didl! "i- \%W jn^ .,·-•·,ti -.· .*. '-j. ι?..·!?i ι ,40 \'HQIL("J;J ·ί<! -ft !'· ir.s v^u. YU·*«;*-i'>i'.:-ivaji'S' - -).;•» 15 i?In the^resultthe'appeal succ'eeds'andthe subjudicedecision of the«appellant is affuTtied.iThecross-appeal fails and is^herebydismissed.»m';the,circurris'tanceswe makeno'orderfor costsi'' • "^' " ' ·i/.vo*»uiti hn«O'.-' /TV."> « eomj !•: Otii it. rv.j.i.vi-.q Η,Ί O»iiq ^PIKIS'J^.I.agfeemat-the'appeal'of-me^RepubliC'agam derofithe'trial Gourfannulling the'promotiortfdf a number:6f'ih20 terestedparties for failureUo'satisfyme'requisites'of^aw 33/67-as amended by Law<31/80, should'be^allowedtforuhe'reasons indi1 * cated in thejudgnientjof Savvides/J. Also I am of opinion that the cross-appeal should be dismissed for-failure of'the'appellants toestablish anything approaching striking superiority over the in
- terested parties.whose appointment*theychallenged: The area of my disagreement with themajority judgment concernsthatpart of· thedecision allowing theappealbf the'Republicagainst the dec'' laration made:by.thetrial Courtth'at interested:parties Athanasioii1 andKoutawere ineligible for'appointment. Inmyjudgment nei : ^Q thef-was eligible for lack of'the qualifications required·by the scheme of service. Below Iexplain thereasons of my disagree r ment. " " - ' " »<• ·' . : · . J•·' " " t ..'. · ' • , . ' • . . ..." *• " - Notwithstanding their*provenance*schemes of service rank as 1925 · PikisJ. Republicv. Christodoulides
(1988)legislativeinstrumentsestablishingtheprerequisitesforthemanningofparticularsectionsofthecivilservice.Nonetheless,their interpetationissubject tospecialrulesinextricablylinkedtotheir themeandtheobjectstheyaredesignedtopromote.Unlikeother legislativeprovisions theirinterpretation isnotamatterofpure 5 law.Thebodychargedwiththeirapplication,namely,thePublic ServiceCommission,isalsovestedwithpowertointerpretthem. Consequently,administrativediscretionresidingwiththeP.S.C. anadministrative body,extendstotheinterpretation ofschemes of service.Theadoptionofthisexceptionalruleofinterpretation .« affecting theparticularclassoflegislative instruments,notably schemesofservice,reflects thespecialpurposetheyareintended toserveandtheuniquepositionoftheP.S.C.tocorrelatethemto theneedsofthepublicservice. Ithasbeenproclaimed timeandagainthattheP.S.C.mayput ,5 uponschemesofserviceanyinterpetation thatisreasonablyopen to them(Frangoulides andAnother v.P.S.C.
(1985)3C.L.R. 1683;Republicv.Xinari
(1985)3C.L.R. 1922).Broad astheir discretionis,itisnotabsolute.Itisfetteredbythewordingofthe particularprovision of theschemesof serviceandthecontextof ™ theschemeasawhole.WideasthediscretionoftheAdministrationmaybeintheconstructionofaschemeofservice,itcan,undernocircumstancestranscendthelimitations,objectivelyidentifiable importedbythewordingofthescheme(See,interalia,Der Parthogv. CM.C.
(1984)3C.L.R.635;Christoudias v.Repu- 25 W/c
(1985)3C.L.R.512). The particular provision for the schemeof service with the constructionofwhichweareconcernedinthiscase,referstoacademic qualifications necessaryforappointment.Theschemerequired "aUniversityDegreeorTideorequivalentqualification in 30 anappropriate subject, e.g.inthePublicAdministration,inLaw (includingthedegreeofBarrister-at-Law),inEconomicorPolitical Sciences,inBusinessAdministration,etc.".Thelearnedtrial Judge decidedthat the exemplification of "appropriate subject" disclosed a widercategory of academic qualifications asgenus 35 (Ruleofejusdem generis).AdegreeofEnglishLiterature(awar1926 3 C.L.R. Republicv.Christodoulides Pikis J. dedby theUniversity of Salonica)was outsidethat genusandfor thatreasonthetwo interestedpartieswereineligibleforappoint ment.Itis obvious from thewording.of thescheme,thattheex amples given wereintendedtoelucidate theexpression "appro5 priatesubject" andremovedoubtsthatmightconceivably be en tertainedastoitscompass. Theappropriatenessof thesubject had tobedeterminedby reference tothedutiesof an administrative officer defined inthesameschemeof service./Those dutieswere parexcellenceof anadministrativecharacter.Itispartof the du,Q ties of an administrativeofficer toholdinquiries, submitreports andmemorandatosuperiors withaview/tqsolvingadministrative problems andformulating policy and,moresignificantly still,to apply thelaw indiversecircumstancesof humanactivity.JThe.ac^ ademicqualifications citedasexamples of "appropriate subject" ^ reinforce dieviewthat thequalifications mustbeof akind refera bletoadministrativeduties.* 1 'V ,«'W\ 1Λ T\ .' ' '/ -. Μ ·- " - * j Adegree,of,English Literatureis not.^ontheface ofit, aqualification>tof the/above character^nordidthematerialbeforethe Commissionestablish that adegreeof'English Literatureawarded by theUniversityNof Salonica was of adifferent characterthan Literature degrees ordinanly are.Consequently,it was not rea sonably opento'therespondentstofindthat thedegreeinEnglish Literatureheldby,the(interestedparties,was within-therangeof thequalifications specified bytheschemeofservice. 25 Iwould/therefore, for mypart/dismiss thisaspectof the ap pealoftheRepublic... . ,, Appealallowed. Cross-appeal dis missed. Noorderas tocosts. • ' »: 1927,-.t /