(1988)1988December28 [A.LOEOU,P.,MALACHTOS,DEMETRIADES,SAVVIDES,STYUANIDES, KOURRIS,JJ.] THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Appellants-Respondents, v. MARIACHRISTOUDIA, Respondent-Applicant. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo. 794). SKEVIPETROU. Appellant-InterestedParty. v. MARIACHRISTOUDIA, Respondent-Applicant. (ReviosionalJurisdictionAppealNo. 795). THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEPUBLICSERVICECOMMISSION, Appellants-Respondents. v. CHRISTOSCHRISTOUDIAS, Respondent -Applicant. (RevisionalJurisdictionAppealNo. 808). 2622 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Christoudia ConstitutionalLaw—SeparationofStatePowers—Qualificationsforappoint menttopostsinthepublicservice—Whethercanberegulatedorprescribed bylaw—Questiondeterminedintheaffirmative. • '' 5 ' ConstitutionalLaw—TheCasualPublicOfficers(AppointmenttoPublicQffices)Law, 1985(Law160/85h-Notunconstitutional. ConstitutionalLaw—PublicServiceCommission—TheCommissionsetup by theConstitutionbecame defunctbyreasonoftheknownevents—Thepow. erspfthe newCommission undersection5ofLaw33/67are"subject to theprovisionof this or anyother lawinforcefor the time being"— 10 Legislatorcanregulate theexerciseofitscompetenceandlimittheclassof -' personstobeappointed. 15 20 25 ConstitutionalLaw—Equality—Constitution,Art.28—Doesnotprohibitrea sonabledifferentiations—Treatinginthesamemannerdifferentsituations— Mayleadtoinequality—TheCasualPublicOfficers(AppointmenttoPublic Offices)Law, 1985.(Law 160/85)—Neitherrepugnanttonorinconsistent withArt. 28. . ' , ' . * : , ''i ' l Legitimateinterest—TheCasualPublicOfficers(AppointmentstoPublicOffi ces) Law,1985(Law 160/85)—Appointments thereunder-^Persons out side theclass,whichthe.legislatorintended,tobenefu-^ponothavelegitimateinteresttochallengesuchappointments. ~, ..,,t , Λ „Alargenumberofpersonswereemployedthrough theyearsasCasual PublicOfficers. FollowinganagreementbetweenPA.SY.DY (ThePublic .OfficersTradeUnion)andtrieGovernment, theHouseofRepresentatives enactedLaw 160/85,providingfortheappointmentof-thoseofsuchpersons, whopossesseddierequiredqualifications forthepostofwhichthey ,.wereperformingtheduties,to,suchposts. r , T -·^. - ],~ r Asaresultthethreeinterestedpartieswereappointed(onprobation) to thepermanentpostofClerk,2ndGrade,andfour tothepermanentpostof .(AdministrativeOfficer., .. - ,,..; ... -, ., ,,-.,--, >- · - ' 30'; 35 - - I . '.·' Λ* |« J . * • ,i Ί <I J I -I'll ' ^ -f ' \ · .-v . .·' i; +tzu .·>:·,· ;.fFlt,v, .••/.v,; •* .c*"?.•"?·,'•?", -M' '·. •" .! ChristosChristoudias,a,public officer, holding thepostof ClerkJst Grade,challengedthevalidityoftheappointmentoftheaforesaidAdminis trativeOfficers andMariaChristoudia,apersonwhowasemployedon an hourly basis asClerk,;challengedthe.legality,of theappointmentof the .aforesajd CleAs;2ndGrade.( ?·., - , - . , . , · . : ο TheJudgeofthisCourt, whotriedrecourse668/86annulledthesubjudiceappointmentsonthefollowinggrounds,namely:(a)Thattheprescrip- 2623 t Republic v. Christoudia
(1988)tionofthequalifications ofappointmenttothePublicServiceisintheexclusivecompetenceoftheExecutive,and(b)Thatthelegislatureassumed toagreatextenttheappointingandselectionfunctionsofthePublicService CommissionandencroacheduponthecompetenceofthisOrgan. ThesameJudgeannulledthesubjudiceappointmentsinrecourse590/ 5 86.Inthatcase,he,also,found thattheapplicant,whopossessedallqualifications for thesubjudicepost,hadalegitimateinteresttochallengethe subjudiceappointmentsbecausehisexpectationsforascentinthehierarchicalladderwereprejudicially affected. Hencetheseappeals. 10 Held,allowingtheappeals:A.Loizou,P.dissenting:
(1)Thepostsinquestionhavenotbeenadvertised,asthelawinquestiondispensed withsucharequirement.This isnotagroundtoinvalidate thelaw.Noapplicationsfrom candidatesatlargewereinvitedTherespondents(applicantsintheRecourses)werenotcandidates.Therewerenopersonsentitledtothepostinquestion.Nobodyacquiredarighttobecandidatebutonlythegroupofcasualpublicofficers,whowereeligibleunder theLaw.Therespondentsdonothavealegitimateinteresttochallengethe subjudiceappointments. 15
(2)ThetrendofthisCourtwastoconsidertheschemesofservicemade 20 bytheCouncilofMinisterspursuanttosection29ofLaw33/67asdelegatedlegislationforthecarryingintoeffect ofthelaw,andthedelegatedpowerwas,therefore, exercised underArticle54(g)oftheConstitution.Certainlytherewerejudgmentsanddictatotheopposite.Havinggiventothe matter due consideration, this Court isof theopinion that thepower to 25 createpostsandtodeterminethequalificationsoftheofficers iswithinthe ambitofthelegislativepoweroftheRepublic.
(3)ThePublicServiceCommission,setupbyLaw33/67,isasubstituteofthedefunct Public ServiceCommissionestablished underArticle 124 of the Constitution, which became defunajby reason of the well 30 knownevents. ThepowersofthePublicServiceCommissionundersection5ofLaw 33/67aresubjecttotheprovisionsofthisoranyotherlawinforceforthe timebeing. NocompetenceoftheCommissionistakenawaybyLawNo. 160/85, 35 whichonlyregulatestheexercisebytheCommission,ofitscompetence. 2624 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Christoudia Thelegislatureisnotprecluded,byregulatingtheexerciseof thecompetenceof theCommission,tolimittheclassofcandidatesorpersonstobe appointed,providedthatitdoesnotinfringeanyprovisionoftheConstitution. 5 10 15 20 Inthespecialcircumstancesofthisparticularcase,wefindthatthere wasnointerferencebythelegislaturewiththecompetenceoftheCommission.
(4)Article28isviolatedonlywhenthedifferentiation isnotbasedon objectiveandreasonablejustification. Theexistenceofsuch justification mustbeassessed inrelation totheaimandeffects ofthemeasureunder consideration,regardbeinghadtotheprincipleswhichnormallyprevailin democraticsocieties.Article28islikewiseviolatedwhenitisclearlyestablishedthatthereisnoreasonablerelationshiponproportionalitybetweenthe meansemployedandtheaimsoughttobe realized. Bareequalityoftreatmentregardlessoftheinequalityofrealitiesisneitherjusticenorhomagetotheconstitutionalprinciple.Whereobjects,personsortransactionsessentiallydissimilararetreateduniformly,discriminationmayresult. Inthiscasethesituationandcircumstancesoftheclass,whichthelaw intendedtobenefit,wasinherentlydifferent from thatofanindividualoutsidesuchclass. < Appealsallowed.Cross-Appeals dismissed.Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 25 Papapetrouv.TheRepublic,2R.S.C.C.61; Ishinv.TheRepublic,2R.S.C.C.16; Policev.HondrouandAnother, 3R.S.C.C. 82; GeodeUkianandAnotherv. TheRepublic
(1969)3C.L.R.428; PA.SYD.Y. v. TheRepublic
(1978)3C.L.R. 27; 30 PresidentoftheRepublicv. TheHouseofRepresentatives
(1986)3 G L U 1159; 2625 Republicv.Christoudia
(1988)PresidentoftheRepublicv.TheHouseofRepresentatives
(1985)3CLA. 2127; TheodoridesandOthersv.Ploussiou
(1976)3GLA.319; Republicv.Kyriacou
(1987)3CIA.1189; TheBoardforRegistrationofArchkectsandCivilEngineersv.Kyriakides 5
(1966)3CXA.640; BelgianLinguisticCase,EuropeanCourtonHumanRights,SeriesA,Volume6,p34; Johnstonv.ChiefConstableoftheRoyalVesterConstabulary(Case222/ 84)C.M.LA.,Vol.47(1986:3)p.240,paras.
(18)and
(38); 1Q Mikrocommatisv.TheRepublic,2R.S.C.C. 125; StateofKeralav.HajiK.HajiKuttyNanaAIR, 1969SC378; DecisionsofGreekCouncilofStateNos.3160/76and1852/77; CityofCleburne,v.CleburneLivingCenterInc.,473U.S.
- Appeals and cross-appeals. 15 Appeals and cross-appeals againstthejudgment of aJudgeof the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Pikis, J.) given on the 15th March, 1988 (RevisionalJurisdiction Case No.668/86)*whereby thedecision of the Public ServiceCommission toappoint the interested parties who were temporary employees tothepost of ^0 Clerk 2nd Grade under the provisions of the Temporary Public Employees (Appointment toPublic Positions) Law, 1985 (Law No. 160/85) was annulled. M. Triantqfyllides, Attorney-General of the Republic with L. Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General, L. Koursownba (Mrs.) and A. Vassiliades, for the appellants-in R.A. 794 and R.A.
- *{Reportedin
(1988)3CLJt.515). 2626 25 3CX.R. Republicv.Christoudia E.Efstathiou,for appellantinR.A.795. A.S. Angelides,withN. LoizouandChr.Christoforou, for respondents. Appearancesincross-appealsaccordingly. 5 Cur. adv. vult. A.LOLZOU.P.:TheJudgment of theCourt (Malachtos,Demetriades,Sawides,Stylianides,andKourris,JJ.)willbedeliverdbyMr.JusticeStylianides. 0 5 STYLIANIDES.J.: Appeals794and795weretaken bythe RespondentsandSkeviPetrou (theinterestedparty)respectively andAppeal 808bytheRespondents against theJudgment of a Judge of this Court, whereby he annulled the appointment of threecasualpublicofficers tothepostofClerk,2ndGradeand fourotherstothepostofAdministrative Officer. Therespondents-applicantsintheappeals-bycross-appeals raisedbeforethisCourttheissueswhichwereleft unresolvedby thetrialJudge. Averylargenumberofpersons
(1902)werethroughtheyears .employedascasualpublicofficers. " PA.SYX>Y.(ThePublicOfficers TradeUnion)andtheExecutiveBranchoftheGovernmentreachedanagreementfor,subject tocertainconditions,normalizationofthesituation,byabsorbing thosewhopossessedthequalificationsrequiredbytheschemeof serviceofthepostofwhichtheywereperforming thedutiesand appointingthemtopermanentpostinthePublicService. ABillto.thateffect waspreparedandapprovedbytheCouncil ofMinisters.It wasplacedbefore theHouseof Representatives andenactedas'TheCasualPublicOfficers (AppointmenttoPublicOffices) Law,1985(LawNo.160/85). 2627 StylianidesJ. Republicv.Christoudia
(1988)PursuantandinaccordancewiththatLaw,thethreeinterested parties,wereappointed (onprobation) tothepermanentpostof Clerk,2ndGrade,andfourtothepermanentpostofAdministrativeOfficer. Christos Christoudhias, apublic officer, holding thepostof 5 Clerk, 1stGrade,challengedthevalidityoftheappointmentof the aforesaid Administrative Officers andMariaChristoudhia,a person who was employed on an hourly basis as Clerk, challengedthelegalityoftheappointmentoftheaforesaidClerks,2nd Grade. Tlieycomplainedthat:TheLawonthebasisofwhichtheappointmentsweremade bythePublicServiceCommissionwascontrarytobasicprinciplespermeatingourConstitution,inthesensemattheprincipleof separation ofpowerswasinfringed bytheassertionof 15 executive power by the House, as it partly prepared the scheme of service and it interfered with the function of the Public Service Commission to appoint by selection thebest suitablecandidates;anditwasunconstitutionalforviolationof theprovisionsofArticle28.1 oftheConstitutionbydifferenti- 20 ationbetweencasualofficers andothers. TheRespondentsandoneoftheinterestedparties,theappellantinAppeal795,whotookpartintotheproceedings,supported the legalityof theimpeached actsandcontendedthatapplicants lackedlegitimateinterest;theLawonwhichthesubjudice ap- 25 pointmentsweremadewasnotunconstitutional,astherewasno infringement of theprincipleoftheseparation ofpowersandas theschemeofserviceissubsidiarylegislationmadebytheCouncil of Ministers;the competence and functions of the present PublicServiceCommission,whichisthesubstituteofthePublic ™ Service Commission,envisaged byArticle 124of theConstitution,theindependenceofwhichissafeguarded, aregovernedby section5ofthePublicServiceLaw, 1967,(LawNo.33/67)and Law 160/85doesnotinterfere with theiradministrativecompe2628 10 3 C.L.R. Republicv.Christoudia StylianidesJ. tenceandfunctions; thedifferential treatmentofthecasualpublic officers accordedbyLaw160/85isnotadifferential treatmentfor anindividual,butofalargeclassofpersonswhichwasreasonablyjustifiable. 5 ThefirstinstanceJudgeinRecourseNo.668/86,filedbyMariaChristoudhia,held that theprescription of the qualifications forappoinmentinthePublicServiceistheexclusiveprovinceof theExecutiveand themodification by legislative action of the schemeofserviceinforcewasatransgressionofthelimitsofthe 10 'power of the legislature overriding the will of the Executive, which exclusively possessed that competence.Furthermore,by theconditionsofappointment,bysettingoutintheLawthateligiblefortheseappointmentswerethecasualemployeesi-thelegislatureassumedtoagreatextenttheappointingandselectionfunctionsofthePublicServiceCommissionandencroacheduponthe 15 competenceofthisOrgan. InRecourseNo.590/86thesubjudicedecisionwasannulled. ThetrialJudgeheldthattheapplicantpossessedthelegitimateinterestasadecisionadversetothelegitimateexpectationsofapub-· 20 Heofficer forascentinthehierarchicalladderoftheserviceentitled.himtoseekreviewoftheactionprejudicing thatexpectation. TheapplicantdidhavealegitimateexpectationtosubmitacandidatureforappointmenttothepostofAdministrativeOfficer, ashe waspossessing the formal qualifications and was interested in " fillingonapermanentbasisofthepostofAdministrative Officer. HerepeatedthatLaw 160/85isunconstitutionalforthesame reasonsgiveninhisDecisioninRecourseNo.668/86. 3Q He, further, said that this-Law'is unconstitutional, also, for breachoftheprincipleofequalitysafeguarded byArticle28.1 of theConstitution,asthelimitationofappointmenttotheclassof casualsandtheconsequentialexclusionoftheapplicant was,in hisJudgment,arbitrary. Theappealsandcross-appeals-wereextensivelyarguedandthe 2629 StylianidesJ. Republicv.Christoudia
(1988)followingpointsfallfordeterminationbythisCourt:1.Dotherespondents-applicantspossesslegitimateinterest; 2.IstheLawunconstitutionalinthat:(a)Itviolatestheprincipleofseparationofpowers:(i)Astheschemeof serviceiswithin thecompetenceof the ^ CouncilofMinisters,andcannotbemodifiedbythelegislature itnotbeingwithinthecompetenceofthelegislature. (
- ii)As the Law transgressed the apppointing power of the PublicServiceCommission in suchawayastorenderitunconstitutional. (
- b)Theprinciple of equality is violated. Law 160/85 is attachedtothisJudgment 1.LEGITIMATEINTEREST: Theposts in question havenotbeen advertised. Noapplicationsfromcandidatesatlargewereinvited.Therespondentswere 15 not candidates. There were no persons entitled to the post in question. Nobody acquired arighttobecandidate butonly the groupofcasualpublicofficers, whowereeligibleundertheLaw. In substance theLaw inquestion dispenses inthefirstplace withthe advertisement of thepostasprovided bysection 31of 20 thePublicServiceLawandconfinestheeligibilityforcandidature toacategoryofcasualofficers whohavethequalifications and theserviceprescribedinsection3thereof. Theapplicants,therefore, in viewof this statutory provision didnotandcouldnothaveappliedtobeconsideredascandidates 25 andthequestionarosewhethertheyhavealegitimateinterestto challengetheappointmentofpersonsmadebyvirtueof thesaid Law.Thereisnothinginthesituationtopreventtheenactmentof 2630 3CX.R. 5 Republicv.Christoudia StylianidesJ. legislationthatdoesnotprovidefor theadvertisementofvacant postsandtothatextentcannotbeconsideredasbeinginvalidon anyground.Thatbeingso,theapplicantshavenolegitimateinteresttochallengetheappointmentsoftherespondentswhowere appointedbyvirtueoftheLawandinduecompliancetherewith. Thepointisthatapersonacquiresalegitimateinteresttochallengeafirstentryappointment,in thePublicServiceonlywhen heapplieswithintheperiodprescribedbytheadvertisementpublishedforthatpurpose,invitingapplicationsandhe.hasthe rele10 vantqualifications.Evenwherehehasrelevantqualifications he hasnolegitimateinterest,ifhedoesnotapply. J5 InthepresentcasetheLawmerelydispenseswiththeadvertisement ofanumberofpostsandinfacttheywerenotpromotion posts,-wheretheapplicantwouldhavebeenentitledasamatterof coursetobetreatedasacandidatewithoutadvertisement Therefore,ithastobeexaminedwhetherthisdispensationof theopeningtothepublicandthelimitationoftherighttoapply violatesanyoftheprinciplessafeguarded bytheConstitutionor bytheprinciplesto-befoundintheConstitution. . •·<.. 20 2.(a)(i)SCHEMESOFSERVICE: r ... A' c . Intheearlydaysof theRepublicit wassaid bytheSupreme ConstitutionalCourtthatintheabsenceofany^organic.Iawonthe subject, asfar astheexecutivepowerisconcerned,theschemes of service could only be made orapproved by the Council of 25 Ministers,eitherspecifically,orgenerally,*andthePublicService Commission could not.deviatefromsuch approved.schemes of serviceandoughttoobservetheirprovisions indischargingits duties underthe Constitution -(Theodoros G.Papapetrquand TheRepublic(PublicServiceCommission); 2R.S.C.C.61, at 30 pp.66-67;literIshinandTheRepublic(publicServiceCommission), 2 R.S.C.C. 16,at.p. 18). .. . .' \* t Article54oftheConstitutionprovidesthattheCouncilofMinI 2631 ' ' ' ¥ StylianidesJ. Republicv.Christoudia
(1988)istersshallexerciseexecutivepowerinallmatters,subject tothe executive power expressly reserved, under Articles 47,48and 49, tothePresident and theVice-Presidentof theRepublic,includingthefollowing:"(a)Thegeneraldirectionandcontrolofthegovernmentofthe 5 Republicandthedirectionofgeneralpolicy; (d)theco-ordinationandsupervisionofallpublicservices; (g)makingofanyorderorregulationforthecarryinginto effectofanyLawsasprovidedbysuchlaw;" Article61oftheConstitutionprovidesthat:"ThelegislativepoweroftheRepublicshallbeexercisedby theHouseofRepresentativesinallmatters " InPoliceandTkeodhorosNicolaHondrouandAnother, 3 15 R.S.C.C.82atp. 85itwassaid:"ThereisnothinginourConstitution topreventtheHouse of Representatives from delegating itspower to legislate to otherorgansintheRepublicinaccordancewiththeaccepted principlesofConstitutionalLawandthedoctrineof'delegated 20 legislation' and, in fact, express provision is made in paragraph (g) of Article 54of theConstitution empowering the Councilof Ministers tomake'anyorderorregulation forthe carrying intoeffect of any law asprovided by such law'. It shouldbeobservedthattheinclusionofthemakingofdelegat- *s edlegislationbytheCouncilofMinistersundertheterminologyof'executivepower'inthesaidArticle54cannotbetaken ashavingintendedtochangetheessentialnatureofsuchfunctionbecausetheaforesaid expressioninArticle54hasmerely 2632 3 CX.R. Republic v. Christoudia Stylianides J. beenused-asacomprehensivedescriptionofthepowersexercised by the Council of Ministers which is an executive organ." . 5 10 ThePublicServiceCommission,setupunderArticle 124of theConstitution,becamedefunct duetotheknowneventsandthe PublicServiceLaw, 1967"(LawNo.33/67)wasenacted.Thereby,thepresentPublicServiceCommissionwassetupassubstitutetothePublicServiceCommissionenvisagedbytheConstitution. Section29,thereof,providesthat:"29.-
(1)Thegeneraldutiesandresponsibilitiesofanoffice andthequalificationsrequiredfortheholdingthereof shallbe prescribed in schemes of service made by decision of the CouncilofMinisters." 15 20 25 30 InVahakGeodelekian andAnotherv.Republic (PublicService Commission)
(1969)3C.L.R.428,andparticularly more precisely inPankyprios Syntechnia Dimosion Ypallilon v.Republic
(1978)3C.L.R.27,it washeldthataschemeof service madebytheCouncilofMinisters,undersection29ofthePublic ServiceLaw, 1967(LawNo.33/67),isdelegated legislation in thesenseoftheHondroucase,madeunderArticle54oftheConstitutionforthepurposeofcarryingintoeffect theprovisionsof Law 33/67, and, in particular, provisions such as section 33 thereof.Itfollowsthatitisanactoflegislativenature. After PA.SYDY.case(supra),thetrendof thisCourtwasto considertheschemesofservicemadebytheCouncilofMinisters pursuanttosection29ofLaw33/67asdelegatedlegislation for thecarryingintoeffect ofthelaw,andthedelegatedpowerwas, therefore,exercisedunderArticle54(g)oftheConstitution.Certainlytherewerejudgmentsanddictatotheopposite. InPresidentofRepublicv.HouseofRepresentatives
(1986)3 CX.R. 1159,theSupremeCourtinitsopinionsaidatp. 1172:- / 2633 StylianidesJ. Republicv.Christoudia
(1988)"1.TheexercisebytheCouncilofMinistersofitspowerto make Regulations, under Article 54(g) of the Constitution, does not amount to the exercise of autonomous legislative powerbutitistheexerciseofsubsidiarylegislativepowerpursuanttothelegislativeauthorizationgiventoitoneachparticu- 5 laroccasionbyaLawoftheHouseofRepresentatives." (See,also,PresidentofRepublicv.HouseofRepresentatives
(1985)3C.L.R.2127,atp.2129.) Havinggiven to the matterdueconsideration we areof the opinionthatthepowertocrearepostsandtodeterminethequali- 10 fications oftheofficers iswithintheambitofthelegislativepoweroftheRepublic. Section33ofthePublicServiceLaw33/67makesprovisions forcertainqualificationsforappointment:"Nooneshallbeappointedtothepublicserviceunless-he 15 isacitizenof theRepublic,hehasattainedtheageofseventeen years,he possesses the qualifications laid down in the schemeof servicefor theparticular office towhich appointmentisproposed tobemade,heisof goodcharacter,hehas not been convicted of anoffence of dishonestyorinvolving 20 moralturpitude,etc" Thefunction of subordinate legislation is to supplement the generalLaw,tomakedetailedprovisionsforthecarryinginto effect andapplyingtheparticularprovisionswithintheframework laid down by such Law. The legislation is usually a skeleton 25 pieceof legislation and leavestobefilledupinsubstantialand materialpartsbytheactionofrulesorregulations.Ithasbeena commonpracticeforthelegislatortoleavetheparticularsforthe implementation andcarryingoutof theLawtobesupplemented by subordinatelegislation.Thedutiesandresponsibilitiesofan 30 office varyconsiderably,havingregardtothegreatnumberof offices inthePublicService. 2634 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Christoudia Stylianides J. Therefore, we find thatthe challenged Law 160/85does not transgress into the executive power, within the domain of the Councilof Ministers andis notrepugnant to,orinconsistent with anyof theprovisionsof Article54of theConstitution. 5 10 15 1.(a)(ii)PUBLICSERVICE COMMISSION: Itwas held by the trail Judge, and supported by counsel for therespondentsintheseappeals, thatthesubjudice appointments andtheLaw onwhich they werebased(Law No. 160/85)consti tuteaninterference within thepowersof thePublic ServiceCommission by thelegislativeauthority andthatit is theduty of the Commission to select theperson tobe appointed toa particular post. At the expense of repetition, we say that the Public Service Commission, set upby Law 33/67,is asubstitute of the defunct Public Service Commission establishedunderArticle 124 of the Constitution -(SeeRepublic v.Kyriacou
(1987)3C.L.R. 1189). Section 5of Law 33/67 reads as follows:- 20 25 30 "5.Πληντωνπεριπτώσεωνπερίτωνοποίωνγίνεται ει δικήπρόνοιαεν τω παρόντιηεν οιωδήποτεετέρω νόμω' ως προς οιονδήποτε θέμα εκτιθέμενον εν τώ παρόντι άρθρω και τηρουμένων των διατάξεων του παρόντος ή οιουδήποτεετέρου εκάστοτεεν ισχύι νόμου,αποτελεί κα θήκοντηςΕπιτροπήςοδιορισμός,ηεπικύρωσιςδιορισμού, ηένταξις εις το μόνιμον προσωπικόν,ηπροαγωγή,η μετάθεσις,ηαπόσπασιςκαιηαφυπηρέτησιςδημοσίωνυπαλ λήλων καιηεπ'αυτών άσκησιςπειθαρχικούελέγχου περι λαμβανομένων της απολύσεως ήτηςαπαλλαγήςαπότων καθηκόντωναυτών." ("5. Savewhere otherexpressprovision is madeinthisor anyotherlaw withrespecttoany matterset outinthis section andsubjecttotheprovisionsof this orany otherlaw in force for thetimebeing, it shallbe the duty of theCommission to 2635 Stylianides J. Republic v. Christoudia
(1988)appoint,confirm, emplace on the permanent establishment, promote, transfer, second,retireandexercise disciplinary con trolover,including dismissal orremoval from office of, public officers.") TTie expression "subject to"("τηρουμένωντων")wasjudicial- 5 ly considered in D. Theodorides and Others v. S.Ploussiou
(1976)3C.L.R. 319, anditwas heldthatitis subject tothe pro visions of thisLaw, totheprovisions of any otherLaw in force for thetimebeing. Nocompetenceof theCommissionis takenawaybyLaw No. 10 160/85. Itonly regulates theexercise, by theCommission,of its competence. The Commission exercises its competenceof ap pointment. Ithas toconsider how toproceed, underthe provi sions of section 3,tointerpret theschemeof service, toinquire whetheracandidatehastherequired qualifications, etc. 15 Thepower toappointis notnecessarily exercised by selection amongst thecandidates who apply after anadvertisement of the post.Thatis oneway of appointment.Itmay bethat,in general, itis tobepreferred, butthelegislature is notprecluded,by regu lating theexercise of thecompetenceof theCommission,tolimit 20 theclassofcandidatesorpersons tobeappointed, provided thatit does notinfringe anyprovision of the Constitution. Inthespecial circumstancesofthisparticularcase,wefindthat therewas nointerference by thelegislature with thecompetence of theCommission. Theprinciples of separationofpowers was notviolated inthis respect 2.(b)THEPRINCIPLEOFEQUALITY: The law is presumed tobe constitutional unless declared by thisCourtasrepugnantorinconsistentwith anyof theprovisions 30 of theConstitution.Itis uponaperson challenging the constitu2636 25 ν 3 C.L.R. Republicv.Christoudia StylianidesJ. tionality of alawtoestablish itbeyondreasonable doubt- (The BoardforRegistrationofArchitects &CivilEngineersv.ChristodoulosKyriakides
(1966)3C.L.R. 640). S 10 ,c Article28oftheConstitutionsafeguards therightofequality andembodiestheprincipleofnon-discrimination, whichisafun damentalprincipleindemocraticsocieties. Itdoes not,however, forbid distinctionsintreatmentwhich arefoundedonanobjective assessment ofessentially different factual circumstanceswhich, being based onthepublic interest,strike afair balance between theprotectionoftheinterestofthecommunity.Article28isvio latedonlywhen thedifferentiation isnotbased onobjectiveand reasonablejustification. Theexistenceofsuchjustification must beassessedinrelationtotheaimandeffects ofthemeasure under consideration, regardbeinghadtoprincipleswhichnormallyprevailindemocraticsocieties.Article28islikewiseviolatedwhenit is clearly established thatthereis noreasonablerelationshipof proportionalitybetween the meansemployed andtheaimsought tobe realized. (SeeEuropeanCourtof Human Rights Belgian Linguistic Case,Series A, Volume 6,p.34,paragraph 10,with regard toArticle 14oftheEuropeanConvention.See,also,John ston v.ChiefConstableoftheRoyal UlsterConstabulary (Case 222/84)C.M.L.R.,Volume47 (1986:3) p.240,paragraphs
(18)and
(38)). Article28oftheConstitutionwasjudiciallyconsideredin nu merous cases, startingfromArgiris Mikrommatis and The Republic(Minister ofFinance and Another), 2R.S.C.C. 125,in whichitwassaidatp.131:- 3 0 35 "IntheopinionoftheCourttheterm'equalbefore thelaw' inparagraph 1oftheArticle28doesnotconvey thenotionof exact arithmeticalequality butitsafeguardsonly against arbi trarydifferentiations anddoesnotexcludereasonabledistinc tionswhich have tobemadeinviewoftheintrinsicnatureof things.Likewise,theterm'discrimination!inparagraph 2 of Article28doesnotexcludereasonable distinctionsasaforesaid." 2637 StylianidesJ. Republic v. Christoudia
(1988)Bareequalityoftreatmentregardlessoftheinequality of reali tiesis neitherjusticenorhomage totheconstitutional principle. Classification isforgovernmental orlegislativejudgment Itordi narily becomes ajudicial question only when ithas been drawn and is then subjected totherelevantconstitutional tests. Where 5 objects,persons ortransactions essentially dissimilarare treated uniformly, discrimination may result, for, inourview,refusalto make arational classification may itselfinsomecasesoperateas denial ofequality -(StateofKerala v.HajiK. HajiKuttyΝaha AIR 1969SC 378, asper Shah,J.). 1 0 Thesameprinciples areenunciated inanumberof judgments of theEuropean CourtofHumanRights andbytheGreekCoun cil ofState-(see,iteralia,Decision3160176, wereitwas said:"Ουχ ήττον δεν αποκλείει η αρχήαυτήτην ευρείαν ευχέρειαν του νομοθέτου όπως,αναλόγως προς την φύσιν του υπό ρύθμισιν θέματοςκαιεν όψει των εκάστοτε ειδικών συνθηκών,προβαίνειειςτηνθέσπισιν διακρίσεωνδικαιολογουμένων εκτηςσυνδρομήςειδικώνπεριπτώσεωνή εκλόγων εξυπηρετούντωντογενικόν συμφέρον." InDecision1852/77 we read:- ^ 20 " Επειδήεντωπλαισίωτηςδιατουάρθρου4 παρ. 1του Συντάγματος καθιερουμένης αρχήςτης ισότητος παρέχε ται ειςτον νομοθέτην ευρεία ευχέρεια όπως, συντρέχουσων ειδικών εις δεδομένηνπερίπτωσιν συνθηκών, θεσπί ζει,'κατά παρέκκλισιν απότων γενικώς ισχυόντων, 25 κανόναςειδικούςβάσειαντικειμενικώνκριτηρίωνδικαιολογουμένους εκγενικωτέρου κοινωνικούήδημοσίου συμ φέροντος, τούτο δεπάντως εντός τωνακραίων ορίων, πέραν τωνοποίων ηρύθμισης αντίκειται ειςτο κοινον περί δικαίουσυναίσθημα." ^ In thecaseofCityofCleburne, Texas,etal., Petitioners v. Cleburne LivingCenter, Inc., etal. 473 US432, 87L.Ed. 2d 313,itwassaidatp. 440:2638 J v^.L.K. 5 Republic v. Christoudia StylianidesJ. " theCourtshavethemselvesdevised standardsfordeterminingthevalidityofstatelegislationorotherofficial action thatischallengedasdenyingequalprotection.Thegeneralrule isthatlegislationispresumedtobevalidandwillbesustained iftheclassification drawnbythestatuteisrationallyrelatedto alegitimatestateinterest Whensocialoreconomiclegislation isatissue,theEqualProtection ClauseallowstheStates widelatitude." Inthepresentcasethecomplaintisthatthepostswerenotad10 vertised andequalopportunity wasnot given to everyonewho happenedtopossessthequalification providedintheschemeof service.The appointment waslimited tothecasual public officers. Thislegislationdidnotservepersonalinterestofoneindividu15 al,butsolvedtheproblemsofawholeclassofnotlessthan 1700 persons.TheaimoftheLawwastosolveamajor problemofa separateclassofpersonsanditoffered tothemadifferent treatmentaslaiddowninsection3oftheLaw.Thesituationandthe circumstancesofthatclasswereinherentlydifferent from thatof 20 anindividualoutsidethatclass.Evenassumingthattheapplicants wouldhavehadarighttoeligibilityforcandidaturetothepostenvisagedinsection3oftheLaw,thederogationremainswithinthe limitsof whatwasappropriate and necessary for achieving the aiminview,andthemeasuretakenbythelegislature-thedispensationoftheadvertisementandtheconfinement oftheeligibility for appointmenttothecategoryof casualofficers whohavethe qualifications andtheserviceprescribedinsection3thereof-had areasonablerelationshipofprorjortionalityto theaimsoughtto be realized. ™ . Thedifferentiation wasreasonablyjustified andthelegislator didnottransgressthewidepermissiblelimit Lastly,counselfortherespondents-applicantscontendedthat theprovisions of theLaw were not satisfied by the candidates withregardtoqualificationsandexaminations. 2639 Stylianides J. Republic v. Christoudia
(1988)No material was placed before us tosubstantiate this allega tion.Onthe contrary,we arepersuadedthat therequirementslaid down intheLaw were adheredtoandsatisfied asprovidedthere in. We feel thatwe shouldplaceonrecordthattheinterestof the 5 service andof thepublicisbetterserved by permanentpublic of ficers thanby casuals. We trustthatthe problemof casuals, that was solved by Law No. 160/85, will not be allowed torecur again. Before concluding,we feel thatwe havetoexpress ourappre- 10 ciation to H.H. the Attorney-General, the Deputy AttorneyGeneral andall counsel,who appearedintheseproceedings be fore us, for the valuable assistance they have rendered tothe Court. Fortheforegoing reasons,theappealssucceed. 15 Thecross-appeals are dismissed. Thesubjudicedecisions areconfirmed underArticle 146.4(a) of theConstitution. Lettherebenoordersastocosts. Αριθμός 160των 1985 2° ΝΟΜΟΣΠΕΡΙΔΙΟΡΙΣΜΟΥ ΣΕΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΣ ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΥΠΑΛΛΗΛΩΝ ΠΟΥ ΥΠΗΡΕΤΟΥΣΑΝΣΤΗ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΑΠΑΝΩΣΕΕΚΤΑΚΤΗΒΑΣΗΤΗΝ31Η ΔΕΚΕΜΒΡΙΟΥ 1984 Επειδή εξακολουθεί ναυπάρχει ακόμη μεγάλος αριθ- 25 μός υπαλλήλων πουυπηρετούνπάνωσεέκτακτηβάσηγια την κάλυψη μόνιμων αναγκών της δημόσιας υπηρεσίας και που δεν έγινεκατορθωτό ναδιοριστούν σε δημόσιες θέσεις σύμφωναμετηνυφιστάμενηνομοθεσία 2640 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Christoudia Stylianides J. Καιεπειδήαπόταπράγματακρίνεται απαραίτητηγια την κανονική και απρόσκοπη λειτουργία της δημόσιας υπηρεσίαςοσυλλογικόςδιορισμός,κατάπαρέκκλισητης υφιστάμενη νομοθεσίας, των έκτακτων υπαλλήλων που υπηρετούσαντην31ηΔεκεμβρίου, 1984. Γι' αυτόηΒουλή των αντιπροσώπων ψηφίζει τα ακό λουθα: 1.0 παρώνΝόμοςθααναφέρεταιωςοπερίΕκτάκτων ΔημοσίωνΥπαλλήλων (Διορισμός σεΔημόσιεςθέσεις) Νόμοςτου 1985. 2.-
(1)ΣτονπαρόνταΝόμο,εκτόςανπροκύπτειδιαφο ρετικάαπότοκείμενο "έκτακτοςυπάλληλος" σημαίνει κάθεαδιόριστουπάλ ληλοπουυπηρετείστηδημόσιαυπηρεσίαπάνωσεέκτακτη βάση,αλλά δεν περιλαμβάνει ωρομίσθιο υπάλληλο ή δε σμοφύλακατουΤμήματοςΦυλακών. "μόνιμες ανάγκες" σημαίνει ανάγκες απρόβλεπτης διάρκειας.
(2)Όροι που δεν ορίζονται διαφορετικά στο Νόμο . αυτό,έχουντηνέννοιαπουτουςαποδίδεταιμετουςπερί ΔημοσίαςΥπηρεσίαςΝόμουςτου 1967 μέχρι 1983. 3.-
(1)ΚατάπαρέκκλισηαπότιςδιατάξειςτωνπερίΔη μοσίαςΥπηρεσίαςΝόμωντου 1967 μέχρι 1983 ήοποιου δήποτεάλλουνόμουπουαφοράστηδημόσιαυπηρεσίατις σχετικέςμετιςμεθόδουςκαιδιαδικασίεςπλήρωσηςδημο σίωνθέσεων,κάθεέκτακτοςυπάλληλοςοοποίος (α)βρισκότανστηνυπηρεσίατην31ηΔεκεμβρίου 1984, και (β) εξακολουθεί,μεήχωρίςδιακοπή,ναβρίσκεται στην υπηρεσία αυτήτην ημερομηνία θέσπισης του παρόντος 2641 Stylianides J. Republic v. Christoudia
(1988)Νόμου,τηρουμένων τωνδιατάξεωντουεδαφίου 2,διορί ζεταιαπότηνΕπιτροπήΔημόσιαςΥπηρεσίας αναδρομικά απότηνημερομηνίαδημοσίευσης τουπαρόντοςΝόμουσε κατάλληλη δημόσια θέση σύμφωνα με τις διατάξεις των περί Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας Νόμωντου 1967 μέχρι 1983και 5 μεβάσητουςπίνακεςδιοριστέων πουθαετοιμαστούναπό τονΔιευθυντήτηςΥπηρεσίας Διοίκησης καιΠροσωπικού και θα διαβιβαστούν στην ΕπιτροπήΔημόσιας Υπηρε σίας.
(2)Οπροβλεπόμενος στο εδάφιο
(1)διορισμός γίνεται νοουμένου ότι ο έκτακτοςυπάλληλος κατά το χρόνο του διορισμούτου(α)υπηρετείπάνω σεπλήρηβάσηγιατηνκάλυψη μόνι μων αναγκώντηςδημοσίαςυπηρεσίας,και (β)κατέχει ταπροσόνταπουπρονοούνται απότασχέδια υπηρεσίας της θέσης πουαπονέμεταισ' αυτόν καθώς καιταάλλαπροσόνταπουαπαιτούνταιαπότουςπερίΔη μοσίας Υπηρεσίας Νόμουςτου 1967 μέχρι 1983 γιαδιορι σμό στηδημόσιαυπηρεσία. ^ 4. Οι δυνάμειτουπαρόντοςΝόμουδιοριζόμενοι σε δη- 20 μόσιαθέσηδυνατόνναυπαχθούνστο θεσμότης εναλλαξιμότηταςανκαιότανο νόμοςήθελεπρονοήσειτούτο. Α.LOIZOUP.:Iregret thatIcannotagreewith theapproach of my learned Brethren inthese appeals inwhich amatterofcon stitutional importanceisthemainissue, thatis whether theCasual 25 Public Officers (Appointment toPublic Offices) Law, 1985 (Law No. 160of 1985) (hereinafter tobe referred toastheLaw), isun constitutional ornot Therelevant facts andcircumstances aswellas the arguments advanced onall sidesare summarized aptly inthejudgment just 30 delivered, by Stylianides J.,andthismakes my taskeasieras this enables metogo directly intothelegalaspect of theappeals be fore us. 2642 3C.L.R. 5 j0 ,c 2n " 30 35 Republicv.Christoudia A.LoizouP. Before proceeding, however, any further I would like toindorsethe observationjust made bymy Brethren evincingtheir anxietyatthedangerofthismethodofappointmentrecurring,by statinginconcludingtheirjudgmentthattheywouldlike"toplace onrecordthattheinterestof theserviceandthepublicisbetter served bypermanent public officers than by casuals"andthey thengoontostress"thattheproblemofcasualsthatwassolved byLaw 160/85,willnotbeallowedtorecuragain." TheLaw,thetextofwhichisappendedtothemajorityjudgmentconsistsof aPreamble andfour sections,thatistheShort Title,Section 1,theDefinition section,Section2,thebasicprovisionscontainedinSection3andSection4,inwhichprovisionis madethatincaseaLawwillprovidefortheinterchangeabilityof offices, thoseappointedbyvirtueoftheLawmaybebroughtunderit. Section3oftheLawprovidesthat,"IndeviationfromtheprovisionsofthePublic Service Laws, 1967to 1983, oranyother Lawasregardsthemethodsandproceduresofappointmentinthe publicservice,everycasualofficer inthepublicservicewho(a) wasintheserviceonthe31stDecember 1984,and(b)whocontinuestoholdoffice withorwithout interruption onthedateof theenactmentoftheLaw,shouldbeappointedbythePublicServiceCommissionretrospectivelyfrom thedateofthepublication of theLawtoasuitableoffice inaccordancewiththeprovisions ofthePublicServiceLaws, 1967to 1983,andonthebasisofthe listsofcandidateswhichwillbepreparedbytheDirectorofPublicAdministrationandPersonnelandbetransmittedtothePublic Service Commission". Suchappointment wastobemade" provided thecasual officer was at thetimeof his appointment (a) servingonafull basisforthedischargeofpermanentneedsofthe publicserviceand(b)hadthequalificationswhichwereprovided bytheSchemesofServiceforthepostgiventohimaswellasthe otherqualificationsrequiredbythePublicServiceLaws." UnderArticles122to 125,ofourConstitutiontherehasbeen setupthePublicServiceCommissionentrustedwiththedutyto 2643 A. Loizou P. Republic v. Christoudia
(1988)appoint,confirm,emplaceonthepermanentorpensionableestablishment,promote,transfer,retireandexercisedisciplinarycontrolover,includingdismissalorremovalfromofficeofpublicofficersasthetermisdefined inArticle122oftheConstitution. AsregardstheEducationalOfficers, thecompetencewasgiven 5 totheCommunalChamberswhichwereresponsibleformatters ofEducation whichincludedthe EducationalOfficers formembersof therespective Communities.Asaresult of thesituation createdbysubsequentneedswhichrenderedimpossiblethefunctioningoftheOrgansestablished bytheConstitution for theap- IQ poitment and generally theexercise of competence regarding Public Officers, EducationalOfficers, Officers andPublicBodies,threeLawswereenacted,thePublicServiceLaw1967,(Law No.33of 1967),thePublicEducationalService 1969(LawNo. 10of 1969)andthePublicCorporations (Regulation ofPerson- ^ nelMatters)Law 1970,(LawNo.61 of 1970). TheLawunderexaminationisoneofthefewlawsthathavea Preamblewhichaimsatjustifying its-enactmentandwhichreads asfollows: "Whereas there continues still toexist a greatnumber of 20 employeeswhoserveoncasualbasisinordertomeetpermanentneedsofthepublicserviceandwhohavenotbeenpossibletobeappointedtoPublicOffices inaccordancewiththeexistinglegislation; Andwhereasinthecircumstancesitisconsideredtobees- 25 sentialforthesmoothandunhinderedfunctioning ofthepublic servicethecollectiveappointmentindeviationfrom theexistinglegislation ofcasualemployeeswhowereservingonthe 31stDecember1984.** Itspeaksofadeviationfrom theexistinglegislationandjusti- 30 fled onthe ground that therewastoogreatanumberof casual employees,thattherewerepermanentneedsintheservicetobe .met,thatitdidnotbecomepossibletoappointtheminpublic of2644 3C.L.R. Republic v.Christoudia A.LoizouP. fices inaccordance withtheexistinglegislation, andthat "their collectiveappointmentindeviationoftheexistinglegislation"was asofthecircumstancesconsideredindispensable. Tomymind,nosatisfactoryreasonjustifyingadeparture from 5 theConstitutionisgiven.BythisLawthedeviation,ifjudicially approved willcontinue tobeadopted asacorrectmethodasit was done in thepast when a similar procedure was followed, though suchlegislation nevercameupforjudicialreview.The powertoappointasprovidedbytheConstitutionistakenbysuch IQ legislationawayfromthe PublicServiceCommission,andwhen I saypowertoappoint Imean theselection for appointment as well,anditisentrustedtoHeadsofDepartmentsandotherPublic Officers whobyvirtueofCircularsandotherAdministrativeDecisionsareauthorisedtoemployovertheyearscasualemployees je andthenbylearving theirnumbersincrease,createasocalled necessityforanen-masspermanentappointmentthroughlegislation liketheoneunderconsideration. 20 ^ 3° 35 TheLegislature^by Section 3of theLaw took uponitself in substance theselectionfunctions ofthePublicServiceCommission and soit transgressed on thecompetenceof the OrganassignedbytheConstitution,tomakeappointmentsin thePublic Servicetotheexclusionofeveryother,OrganorAuthority.This amountstoadirectinterference oftheLegislatureinthemethod and procedure of appointment by choosing specified persons knowninadvancewithouttheirselection andcomparisionwith othercandidates. Indeedthismethodfollowed bytheLegislaturedeniestootherstherighttobecandidatesthatis,itdeniestopersonspossessing thequalifications, therighttoequal opportunity, although they may possess the required qualifications, arightof every such interested person to seek appointment in vacantposts.In thiswaytheprincipleofequalitybeforetheLawsafeguardedby Article28oftheConstitutionisviolatedandmoreoverthePublic Service Commission isdenied the power tochoose amongthe severalpossiblecandidates,thebest,byexercisingitsdiscretion 2645 A.LoizouP. Republicv.Christoudia
(1988)inaccordancewiththeGeneralPrinciplesofAdministrativeLaw. InGreecethematterwasapproachedinthesamewayandreference may be made, inter alia, to the Decision of the Greek CouncilofStateNo.772/1953,inwhich itwasheldthatArticle 3 of the Greek Constitution which introduces the principle of 5 equality ofcitizensbefore theLaw,imposesadutythatthepermanent officers whohavetheformal and substantive qualificationsforpromotionbeconsideredatleastonequaltermswiththe casualemployees,withoutexcludingthepreference ofthecasuals,if thechoicewasfound tobejustified bythecomparison of IQ theirqualifications; sotherelevantLawwhichmadeitpossibleto havepromotedthosewhoheldthepostforacertainperiodtothe exclusion from thesectionofthepermanentofficers whohadthe requiredqualifications forpromotionwasfoundtobeunconstitutional. For alltheabovereasonsIwouldaffirm thejudgmentofthe learnedtrialJudgeanddismisstheappeals. Appealsallowedbymajority.Cross-appeals dismissed.Noorderastocosts. 2646 5