3 C.L.R. 1988April28 [STYUANIDES,J.] EM THEMATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION ANTONISKRITIOTIS ANDOTHERS, Applicants, { v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS,THROUGH THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE, L Respondents: (CasesNos. 249186,257/86and258/86). Army of theRepublic—Promotions—TheSeniorityandPromotion ofRegular Officers andNon-commissioned Officers of theArmy of theRepublicRe• gulations,1981—Theyoverride generalprinciples ofadministrative LawPromotions in thearmyare made either by selectir» or by seniority—By 5 seniority alonearepromoted officers uptotherankof Captain—4ncaseof promotion by seniority the question of merit andqualifications does not arise. Legitimateinterest—Armyof theRepublic—Applicants andinterestedparties placed in the list as entitled topromotion by seniorityalone—Promotion 10 withretrospective effect of interestedparties—Applicants donot-possess legitimateinteresttochallenge theretrospectivity. '.-*;,·, ' ' ι - Legitimateinterest—Review ofprinciples emergingfrom case law. The facts of this case appear sufficiently from thejudgment of the Court 15 Recourse dismissed. Noorderas tocosts. 885 Kritiotis &Others v. Republic
(1988)Casesreferredto: Theodossiou v.The Republic, 2R.S.C.C. 44; Papassavasv. TheRepublic
(1967)3GLA.111; Panayidesν TheRepublic
(1973)3C.L.R. 378, Papaleontiou v.IteEducational Service Commission
(1987)3GL.R. 5
- Recourses. Recourses against thedecision of the respondent topromote theinterestedparties totherankof Captaininthearmyof theRe publicinpreference andinstead of theapplicants. 10 Chr.KitromilideSy for theapplicants. R. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the re spondent. Cur. adv.vult. STYLIANIDES J. read thefollowingjudgment. Theappli- 15 cants b> theserecourses seek theannulmentofthepromotionof theinterestedparties to therankof Captainin thearmyof the Re public witheffect from 1stSeptember, 1985, publishedintheOf ficialGazetteof 7thMarch,
- Interested parties Yiangou andPanayi were lieutenants from 20 1st May, 1976,interested party Ioannou from 1stMarch,1977 and interested party Ktorides from 1stMay,
- 886 3 C.L.R. Kritiotis & Others v. Republic Stylianides J. All the interested parties possessed the qualifications pre scribed in Regulations 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Seniority and' Promotion of Regular Officers andNon-commissioned Officers of theArmy of theRepublicRegulations 1981,published inthe 5 Official Gazetteon 5th June,
- At theordinary annualas-, sessement of 1985 they were assessedby theappropriateBoard asremaininginthesamerank,thatis nottobepromoted.The in terestedpartiesinpursuanceofRegulations33and34challenged successfully this adverse assessment before the Board of Re10 .assessment. By the decision of theBoardof Re-assessment they wereentitledtopromotion(προακτέοι)totherankofCaptainby seniority alone. Inthemeantime,however, anilbefore the com pletionoftheprocessbefore thislatterBoard,theexisting vacant postsin 1985for Captainswerefilled.Inthefollowing yeararid 15 particularly on 1st February, 1986, four vacantpostsof Captain were createdduetoretirement.Theinterestedpartieswerethen promoted, not as from 1st February, 1986, but retrospectively from 1st September, 1985, thedatethatthey would have been promoted had they been considered as suitable for promotion 20 (προακτέοι)by the Assessment Board. Financialpromotion, however, commencedasfrom1stFebruary, 1986, thedate that thevacancies actually existed. Applicants inCasesNos249/86 and257/86 were holdingthe rankof lieutenantas from 1st June, 1980 andapplicantinCase 25 No.258/86 as from 1st August, 1980, They were possessed of all thequalifications requiredby Regulations 12,13, 14and
- Intheordinaryannualassessments of 1985theywereassessedas eligibleforpromotion(προακτέοι)by seniority tothenextrank, thatof Captain. Theirorderof seniority,however, was very low 30 inthelisthavingregard tothedatethattheybecame lieutenants and,therefore,they'were notpromoted,astherewere noavaila blevacancies tosatisfy all thoseassessedeligible. ." Counselfor the applicantsargued thatthesubjudicepromo tionsmustbeannulledfor thefollowing grounds: * 35 • • >_ ~ , (a) Theapplicantswere betterinmeritandqualifications and, 887 • . _ , Stylianides J. Kritiotis &Others v. Republic
(1988)therefore,accordingtothecriteriaonwhichtheclaimsforpromo tion of thecivil servants are based the applicants should have been preferred. (b)Thatthepromotionof theinterestedpartieswas contraryto law, particularly toRegulation 11
(3)whichprovides thatpromo- 5 tions aremadewhenthereisavacantpost. (c) Referenceis madetoRegulation9
(9)withregard tothe or derof senioritybetween certaincategoriesof officers. Promotionsinthearmyaregoverned bytheSeniorityandPro motionof Regular Officers andNon-commissionedOfficers of 10 theArmy of theRepublic Regulations, 1981.Express statutory provision overrides thegeneralprinciples applicable inothersec tions of theadministrationeitherunderthegeneral principles of Administrative Law orspecific statutoryprovisions. Theprinci ples of Administrative Law expounded inMichaelTheodossiou 15 andtheRepublic, 2R.S.C.C,44andothercases priortotheen actmentof thePublic Service Law, 1967 (Law No. 33/67) and therelevantprovisions of thisstatutedonotapplyinthisparticu lar case which concerns promotionunder specific regulations. Thepromotionsinthearmyaremadeeitherby selection orsim- 20 ply by seniority.By seniorityalonearepromotedtheofficers up totherankof Captain (Regulation 20
(3)). Thepromotionsinthepresentcases werepromotions byseni ority alone.Therefore, noquestion of selection on thebasisof qualifications and meritarose.Theonly criterionis theassess- 25 mentof theofficer aseligiblefor promotion(προακτέος)andhis placeinthelistaccording toseniority. Thecaseof anofficer or non-commissionedofficer maybesubmittedforconsiderationby the Assessment Board if hepossesses theformal qualifications set outintheRegulations 12,13, 14and 15(Regulation 11
(2)). 30 UnderRegulation 22
(1)for anofficer ornon-commissionedoffi certobeassessedaseligibleforpromotionby seniorityheisre quired topossess with grade "good" thequalifications set out in paragraph 1ofRegulation 21. 888 3C.L.R. Kritiotis & Others v.Republic Stylianides J. Thereisnocomplaintthattheinterestedpartiesdidnot satisfy therequirementsofRegulation22
(1).Aperusalofthecontentsof theirfilesproducedbeforemeleavesnodoubtthatthefourinterested partieswere wrongly assessed asnon-eligible for promo5 tion bysenioritybytheAssessmentBoardandrightlytheBoard forRe-assessmentacceptedtheirrecourses. Inviewoftheabovethefirstgroundonwhichthese recourses arebasedfails. ^ The third ground is theinterpretation and reasonablenessof 10 paragraph9ofRegulation9.Thisparagraphisirrelevantandhas nobearing for thedetermination of thesecases. Suffices tosay thatthewordingofthisparagraph isplainandunambiguous. Of-, • -fleersbelongingtocertaincategoriesofthearmyareconsidered senior toofficers belonging toother categories though they all 15 werepromotedtothesamerankonthesamedate.Theseniority oftheinterestedpartiesovertheapplicantsisnotindisputeinthe presentcase. Thesecondpointtakenupbycounselfortheapplicantsisthe retrospectivepromotion of theinterested parties with effect 1st 20 September, 1985,though theeconomic promotion commenced on 1stFebruary, 1986. Havetheapplicantsalegitimateinteresttochallengethe rem>spectivityofthesubjudicepromotions?Theapplicantstofileor pursuearecoursemustbepossessedofalegitimateinterestexist25 ingatthetimeofthefilingoftherecourseanduntiltheendofthe case.ForthisCourttohavecompetencetoinquireanddetermine thevalidityofthesubjudicedecisiontheremustbealegal relationshipoftheapplicantwiththechallengedact.TheCourtmust besatisfiedthatthelegitimateinterestoftheapplicantisadversely 30 anddirectly affected bythechallenged act.Thedecision ofthe AdministrativeCourtregardingtheissueoflegitimateinteresthas tobereached in the lightof thecircumstances of theparticular case. 889 Stylianides J. Kritiotis & Others v. Republic
(1988)Legitimateinterestexistsif theCourtis satisfied thattheexist ing interest of an applicant,thoughnotyet adversely and direct ly affected, is inevitably boundtobeaffected eventually. Useful reference may bemadetoPapasawasv. TheRepublic
(1967)3 C.L.R., 111; Petrakis Panayides v. The Republic
(1973)3 5 C.L.R.,378 andtherecentJudgmentoftheBullBenchinPapal eontiou v.TheEducational " AceCommission
(1987)3C.L.R. 1341.) A generalinterest of a public officer in connectionand incompliancewithprovisions applicabletothebranch of thepub lic service towhich hebelongs does notsuffice tovestinhima 10 personal legitimate interest enabling him to make a recourse againstpromotionsof colleagues ofhis. Thepresent case is distinguishable from theaforesaid judg mentof theSupremeCourt.Theretrospectiveeffect given to the promotionof theinterestedpartiescouldnotadversely affect the 15 applicants' seniority. Itmust be further said thattheapplicants were again in 1987 assessed as eligible for promotion (προακτέοι)by seniority in 1987 andtheywereactuallypromot edtotherankof Captain.Theapplicantshavenolegitimateinter 2 esttocontesttheretrospectivity of thepromotions. ^ For all the foregoing reasons, these recourses fail. They are herebydismissed andtheactschallenged areconfirmed. Letthere beno orderastocosts. Recoursesdismissed. Noorderastocosts. 25 890