(1989)19S9 Januarv 27 [\ L.OIZOU.Ρ. DEMETRIADES. SAVVIDES. PIKIS. JJ] THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS. THROUGHTHE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Appellants, ν MILTIADES MILTIADOUS. Respondent (Revisional Jurisdiction Appeal So 77S) Public officers — Promotions — Qualifications — "Treated service" — Decision 12655 of Councilof Ministersin respect of "recognitionof a post-graduatediplomaor titleon education or post-graduate education b\ apublic oflicerasserviceor experience''— A benefit thatcanonly be usedonce — The choice of whenthat shouldbe. belongs to the officer $ concerned The respondent in this appeal was a candidate for promotion to the post of Assistant Collector of Customs He was however, excluded because he had noi completed the required period of sen ice in the post 10 of Customs and Excise Officci first grade The respondent in this appeal invoked the decision 12655 of the Council of Ministers the text of which appears at page 135 of the decision, and filed arecourse tothis Court Infact whilst hewas serving 15 in the lower post of Customs and Excise Officer 2nd grade he acquired. following studies abroad, a post-graduate diploma, satisfwng the requirements of the said decision The respondents intherecourse (appellants mtheappeal) argued that 2 0 the benefit undci the decision could onl\ relate and be treated as amounting to sen ice in thepost thattheapplicant held at the time of his studies abroad 3 C.L.R. Republic \. Miltiadous TheJudge,whoheardtherecourse,didnot accept thisinterpretation On thecontrary inannulling thesub judice decision heheldthat it is for the officer concerned to choose when he will use thebenefit, which can only be used onceonlv dunng an officer's career 5 As aresult thepresent appeal was filed The onlv issue that arose for determination was what was the proper interpretation of the aforesaid decision of theCouncilof Ministers 10 The Full Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal (Loizou, Ρ dissenting) holding that the interpretation adopted by the judgment appealed from wascorrect Appeal dismissedΛο orderas to costs 15 Casesreferredto Papapetrouν Republic2RSCC 20 61, Frangoulhdes andAnother ν PublicService Commission
(1985)3CLR 1680, Der Parthogh ν Republic
(1984)3CLR 25 Republic ν Aivaliotis
(1971)3CLR Pctsasν Republic3RSCC 635, 89 60, Sotcnou ν Republic
(1980)3CLR 237, Aivaliotis ν Republic
(1970)3CLR 149 30 Kolokotroms \ Republic
(1980)3 CLR 418 35 Appeal. Appeal against the judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (Kourns,J) given on the 30th December, 1987 (Revisional Jurisdiction Case No 153/87) reported in 40
(1987)3 C.L.R 1774, whereby the promotion of interested party to the post of Assistant Collector of Customs was annulled 133 Republic v. Miltiadous
(1989)L. Koursoumba(Mrs).Counsel of the Republic B.for the Appelants. G.Triantafyllides, for theRespondent. 5 A.LOIZOUP.: Themajority judgment oftheCourt will be delivered,withtheconcurrence ofJusticesSa\*vides& Pikis.by JusticeDemetriades. DEMETRLADES.J.: Thisisanappealfrom thejudgmentof 10 aJudgeofthisCourt,bywhichthedecisionoftheappellantsnot topromotetherespondenttothepost ofAssistant collectorof Customswasannulled. The facts that led to the proceedings in the first instance 15 Court andtothepresentappeal arethefollowing: In January, 1986.astherewere sixvacancies in thepostof Assistant Collectorof Customs,whichisapromotion post,the Director General of the Ministry of Finance requested the 20 appellants, the body entrusted with the promotion of civil servants, to fill the vacant posts by the promotion of eligible officers. As a result of the request of the Director General, the 25 appellants askedthe Departmental Committee, set up for that purposeundertheprovisionsofsection 36ofthePublicService Law 1967 (Law 33/67), to submit to it its recommendations respecting the candidates in the Department of Customs and Excise eligible for promotion. The Depanmental Committee 30 recommended IS candidates,including therespondent andthe interestedparties. The respondent, although at the material time washolding the post of Customs and Excise Officer 1st Grade,he had not 35 served in that post for three years whichwasthe qualification required bytheschemeof servicefor promotion tothepostof Assistant Collector of Customs. Nevertheless, the respondent. whilstservicing inthe post of Customs and Excise Officer 2nd Grade, had spent time abroad to acquire a post-graduate 40 diplomainsubjectswhichwereconnectedwithorrelatedtohis duties in the service. In view of a decision of the Councilof 134 3 C.L.R, Republic v. Miltiadous Demetriades, J. Ministers (Decision No. 12655). onthesubject of "recognition of apostgraduate diplomaortitleoneducation or post-graduate education by a public officer as service or experience", the appellants sought advice from the office of the Attomey5 General of the Republic whether the period of absence of the respondent ought tobetreatedas oneservedinthepost heldat the time he was abroad for his studies, or whether it could be treated as serviceinthehigher post subsequently heldbyhim. 10 As a result of the legal opinion given by the office of the Attorney-General, the appellants decided that the respondent was noteligiblefor promotion because theperiod spent byhim for obtaining his post-graduate diploma ought tobe considered as service in thepost hewas then holding, i.e. that of Customs 15 andExciseOfficer 2ndGradeandnotintheposthewas holding atthetimethesub judice decision was taken. At thisstage,itispertinenttoset outtherelevant tothis case part of Decision No. 12655 of the Council of Ministers, the 20 heading of which Ihave earlier mentioned: "Διά σκοπούς ΣχεδίωνΥπηρεσίας θέσεων διάτας οποίας απαιτείται ωρισμένηυπηρεσίαή πείρα 25 Μεταπτυχιακόνδίπλωμαήτίτλοςαποκτηθείςκατόπινμε λέτη;ειςτοεξωτερίκόν είτευπόδημοσίουυπαλλήλου κα τάτηνδιάρκειαντηςυπηρεσίας τουείτευπόπροσώπουτι νός προτουδιορισμού ειςτηνδημοσίανυπηρεσίαν, και 30 (α) μησυνιστών απαραίτητονπροσόνδιά τηνθέσιν,δέον να λογίζεται,βάσει τουκανονικώς απαιτουμένου χρό νουδιάτηναπόκτησιναυτού,ωςυπηρεσίαήπείρα μέ χριδύοετών,κατ' ανώτατονόριον, και 35 (β)συνιστών απαραίτητονπροσόνδιάτηνθέσινμη λογίζε ται ως υπηρεσίαήπείραπλην της περιπτώσεως κατο χήςτίτλουΔιδάκτορος(PH.D.) διάτηνοποίανθα λογί ζεται ως ενέτοςυπηρεσίαςή πείρας: 40 Νοείταιότιτοιούτοδίπλωμαήτίτλοςδέονόπωςμη λο γίζεταιωςυπηρεσίαήπείραεάνδενείναισυναφήςπροςτα καθήκοντατηςθέσεως. 135 Demetriades, J. Republic v. Miltiadous
(1989)Ηωςάνωυπηρεσίαήπείραθααναγνωρίζεταιάπαίuoyoy καιθαευρίσκεταιειςπίστιντουυπαλλήλουκατάτην διάρκειαν τηςυπηρεσίαςτου." ("Forthepurposes of Schemes of Service of apost inwhich 5 certain service orexperience is required Apostgraduatediplomaortitleacquiredafter studiesabroad eitherby apublicofficer duringhisservice orby anyperson priortohis appointment tothepublicservice, and 10 (a)not constituting a necessary qualification for the post, shall be reckoned- on the basis of the time normally requiredfor its acquisition,asserviceorexperience up to two years,maximum;and 15 (b)constitutinganecessary qualification forthepostshall not bereckonedasserviceorexperienceexcept inthe caseof possession of the title of Doctor of Philosophy (PH.D.) which shall be reckoned as one year's service or 20 experience: Provided thatsuchdiplomaortitleshall notbereckoned asserviceorexperienceifitisnotrelatedtothedutiesofthe post. 25 The aforesaid service or experience shall be recognized onceonlv andshall be tothecredit of theofficer duringhis service.") 30 Theissueas defined by thetrial Judge is whether theperiod which the appellant spent abroad to acquire his post-graduate diploma, referred to as "treated service" (πλασματικήυπηρε σία),oughttohavebeentreatedasserviceinthepostheldbyan officer duringthetimehespentfor hisstudies,i.e.inthepresent 35 case,asCustomsOfficer, 2ndGrade, orifnotusedatthatstage, whether it could be treated asservice in any otherhigher post subsequently held by the officer, i.e. in the present case, as CustomsOfficer, 1stGrade. 40 Counsel for therespondentin thisappeal -theapplicantin the recourse -submitted to thetrial Courtthat an officer who 136 3 C.L.R. 5 Republic v. Miltiadous Demetriades, J. had spent time abroad in order to acquire a post-graduate diploma related or connected with his duties (which time is known as "treated service" and in the Greek language "πλα σματικήυπηρεσία")canmakeuseof thebenefit afforded bythe said decision of the Council of Ministers at any time during his service in thePublic Service. Counselfor therespondentintherecourse - appellants inthis appeal -in arguing her case before the trial Court,invited it to 10 hold that the decision of the Council of Ministers ought to be interpreted as providing that the "treated service" ought to be treated as service in thepost the officer held during thetimehe spent for his studies. 15 The trial Judge, having heard the arguments of counsel. reached theconclusion that for a post-graduate diploma or title tobe recognized by virtue of the saidDecision of theCouncilof Ministers,four requirements hadtoexist,that is the diplomaor title- 20 (a)was acquired after education abroad, (b)should not constitute a necessary qualification for the post, 25 (c)should relate to theduties of thepost,and 30 35 40 (d)should have been acquired after education abroad by a public officer during his service or by a person before his appointmentinthe public service. The trial Judge held that as a matter of construction of the relevant provisions of the schemes of service, the only limitation to the use of "treated service" is that it can only be used oncein thecareer of theofficer andwhen thatshould be is left to the choice of the officer concerned. Finally, the learned trial Judge annulledthe sub judice decision for misconceptionof material facts, i.e. the facts relevant to the eligibility of the applicant for promotion,and misinterpretation of the relevant provisions of thecircular of the Council of Ministers. In arguing the appeal before us, counsel for the appellant 137 Demetriades, J. Republic v. Miltiadous
(1989)Commission relied on thefollowing grounds of appeal: " 1 . The trial Judge erroneously held that the true construction tobe placed ontheDecision of the Council of Ministers No. 12.655 is that the 'treated service* 5 ('πλασματικήυπηρεσία')canbeusedby apublic officer at any stage of his career provided that he uses this 'treated service' onlyonce.
- ThetrialJudge erroneously heldthatthoughtheDecision 10 of the Council of Ministers No. 12.655 qualifies the scheme of service for the post in question and is incorporated with it, it was not open to the Public Service Commission in reading together the said Decision with thescheme of serviceinquestion to adopt 15 any interpretationthatwas reasonably open to it.
- Alternatively, even if this is a case where the court can intervene and give a legal construction to the said Decision, the trial Judge erroneously held that the only 20 correct interpretation of the Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 12.655 is that the 'treated service' can be used by a public officer at any stage of his career. Further, the trial Judge failed to consider arguments to the effect that such construction would be inconsistent 25 with the provisions of the Public Service Law, (Law 33/1967asamended)." Counsel further argued forcefully thattherelevant schemeof Service andthesaid Decision of the Councilof Ministers should 30 be applied and interpreted as asingle document andthe test to be applied by the Court in the judicial control of the relevant decision of thePublic Service Commission,is thetest which has been enunciatedby a series of decisions of the SupremeCourt, namely that the Court will not interfere with theinterpretation 35 given to a particular scheme of service by the Public Service Commission,if the interpretation was a reasonable one onthe basis of its wording. Having considered all the arguments of counsel for the 40 appellant in support of the appeal,we have notbeen persuaded that thetrialJudge erredintheinterpretationwhichhehasgiven 138 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Miltiadous to the said Decision of the Council of Ministers, On the contrary,suchinterpretation isfully consonant withthewording of the said decision and any other interpretation would be arbitrary andinconsistent withtheplain wordingofthedecision. 5 We are in agreement withthetrial Judgethat the decision of the Council of Ministers modified the schemes of service in a way that left no discretion to the commission as to when "treatedservice"couldbeusedattherequest ofthe beneficiary. 10 It could be used only once at any time of his government service. In the light of the above, we find that the respondent could avail himself of thebenefit afforded by the said Decision of the 15 Council of Ministers whilst holding the post of Customs and ExciseOfficer 1stGrade,althoughhehadnot servedinthat post for three years. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the sub judice 20 decision stands annulled andofno effect. There willbe no order as tocosts. A. LOIZOU. P.: I regret I cannot agree with the judgment 25 just delivered. The respondent inthisappeal wasat all material times a Customs and Excise Officer, 1st Grade, in the Department of Customs and Excise. In January 1986, the Director-General of the Ministry of Finance, initiated the process for the filling of six vacancies in the post of Assistant 30 Collector of Customs, which is a promotion post. Eventually, the appellant Public Service Commission hereinafter to be referred to asthe Commission, decidedthat the respondent was not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Collectorof Customs because at the material time he did not satisfy the 35 relevant provisions of the Scheme of Service, requiring three years service in the post of Customs and Excise Officer. 1st Grade, and proceeded to promote the Interested Parties to the above post inpreference andinstead of the respondent. 40 The respondent challenged the above decision of the Commission by means of a recourse. The learned trial Judge annulled the sub judice decision and as against that annulling 139 A. Loizou, P. Republic v. Miltiadous
(1989)decision theCommission tookthepresentappeal. Therelevant facts wereverylucidlystatedinthejudgmentof thelearnedtrial Judge. I quotefrom pp.4- S of thejudgment: 5 "Theissuewhich is indispute iswhethertheperiodwhich the appellant spent abroad to acquire his post-graduate diploma, which is known as 'treated service' Cplasmatiki ipiresia'), shouldbe treatedasservicetothepost heldbythe officer duringthetimespentfor therelevant studies, i.e..in 10 thepresentcaseasCustomsOfficer,2ndGrade, orifnotused as such,whether it could be treatedas service to anyother higher post subsequently held by the officer, i.e. in the present case,asCustomsOfficer. 1st Grade. 15 Learned counsel for the applicant argued in favour of the latterview, whereas counselfortherespondentcommissionhas taken theformerview. Itispertinentatthisstagetosetout, sofar asrelevantfor the 20 purposes of this case,theDecision of the Councilof Ministers, No. 12655:Άναγνώοισις αεταπτυγιακοΰόιπλώιιατο;ή τίτλουκαιεκπαιδεΰσεω:ήιιετεκπαιδεύσεωςδηαοσίουυπαλλήλουω; υπ^Ίoεσίαcήπείοας. 25 Διά σκοπούςΣχεδίωνΥπηρεσίας θέσεων διάτας οποίας απαιτείται ωρισμένηυπηρεσίαή πείρα30 Μεταπτυχιακόνδίπλωμαή τίτλοςαποκτηθείςκατόπινμε λέτηςειςτοεξωτερικόνείτευπόδημοσίουυπαλλήλουκα τάτηνδιάρκειαντηςυπηρεσίαςτουείτευπόπροσώπουτι νός προτουδιορισμούεις την δημοσίανυπηρεσίαν, και 35 (α) μησυνιστών απαραίτητον προσόνδιά τηνθέσιν, δέον ναλογίζεται, βάσειτουκανονικώςαπαιτουμένουχρό νουδιάτηναπόκτησιναυτού, ωςυπηρεσίαή πείρα μέ χριδύοετών, κατά ανώτατονόριον, και 40 (β) συνιστών απαραίτητον προσόν διά τηνθέσιν μη λογί ζεταιωςυπηρεσίαή πείραπληντηςπεριπτώσεωςκα140 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Miltiadous A. Loizou, P. τοχής τίτλου Δι,όάκτοοος (PH.D.) διά την οποίαν θα λογίζεται ως εν έτοςυπηρεσίας ήπείρας: Νοείται ότι τοιούτοδίπλωμα ήτίτλοςδέονόπωςμη λο γίζεταιωςυπηρεσίαή πείρα εάνδενείναισυναφής προςτα καθήκοντα της θέσεως. Η ως άνω υπηρεσία ή πείρα θα αναγνωρίζεται άπας μόνον και θα ευρίσκεται εις πίστιν του υπαλλήλουκατά την διάρκειαν τηςυπηρεσίαςτου\ In English it may be translatedas follows: 'For the purposes of Schemes of Service of a post in which certain service orexperience is requiredA post-graduate diploma or title acquired after studies abroad eitherby apublic officer during his service or by any person priorto his appointmenttothe public sen-ice.and (a)not constituting a necessary qualification for the post, shall be reckoned, on the basis of the time normally requiredfor itsacquisition,as service or experience upto two years, maximum;and (b)constitutinganecessary qualification for thepost shallnot be reckonedasserviceorexperience except inthecaseof possession of the title of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) which shall be reckoned as one year's service or experience;' Counsel for the applicant argued that the post-graduate diploma should be credited to a public officer and made use of once only at any time he wishes, and stressed that this is clear and one is permittedto make use of this diploma even if it has been obtainedbefore enteringthepublic service. He said that by definition, when you acquire a post-graduate diplomabefore enteringthepublicservice, which isexpressly permitted by the circular, you cannot use it for your first appointment inthepublicservice, because when you are first appointednoschemeofservicerequires previous experience or service, simply because you have not been in the service before. Therefore,hewent onto say thatwhen you acquire a diploma before entering the civil service, you will 141 A.Loizou.P. Republic v. Miltiadous
(1989)necessarily use it in accordance with the provisions of the circular for a promotion to a post at which you did not acquire this post-graduate degree or diploma. He suggested that from the wording of the circular, no restriction is attached to the use of the post-graduate diploma. 5 He went on to say that in the present case we are concerned with legal interpretation and the Court may intervene and interpret the phrase and. ifthe interpretation given by the Public Service Commission to such aphrase or 10 work is not the correct one. then the Court can intervene because in law there can only be one correct interpretation; and it is absurd to say that the Public Service Commission can give any legal interpretation and then the Court cannot intervene because such interpretation iswithin thediscretion 15 of thePublic Service Commission. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the tine issueiswhethertheinterpretation adoptedbythe respondent wasreasonably open to it andthat itisupon theapplicant to 20 discharge theonus,which iscast upon him.and showing that the Public Service Commission has applied the Scheme of Sen-ice in amanner that wasnot reasonably open to it. She went on to say that the interpretation adopted by the Public Service Commission need not necessarily be the most 25 obvious oneorindeedtheonefavoured bytheCourt,andthe test is whether it transgresses the limit set by the wordingof thelaw. In support shecitedthecasesofPapapetrou v.The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 61 at p. 69; Frangoullides and Another v. The Public Service Commission (19S5) 3 30 C.L.R. 16S0 at pp. 1684 - 16S5: Der Parthogh v. The Republic
(1984)3 C.L.R. 635 and The Republic v. Aivaliotis {1911) 3C.L.R.89. She submitted that the object and the meaning of the 35 Decision ofthe Council of Ministers asclearly emerges from its wording as a whole, is to treat as period of service or experience, time spent by a person abroad, either before enteringthe publicserviceorwhileintheservice,in order to further educate himself in matters which are connected with 40 or related to the duties of a certain post; in other words, personswhofor that reason eitherenteredtheservicelateor 142 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Republic \ Miltiadous \. Loizou. Ρ interrupted their actual service should not find themsehes at a disadvantage for the purpose of a scheme of service whereby certain period of service is required, when compared to other officers who hadspent that timeactualh seiving But,she went onto say that it is tar from intending and/ormeaningtoplacepersons 'creditedwith service' atan advantage o\erpersons whoactually served Sheinvited the Court to accept as acorrect interpretationof the Decisionof the Council of Ministers that 'treated service' ('plasmatiki lpiresia') shouldbe treatedas serviceto thepost heldby the officer during thetimespent for therelevant studies" The learned trial Judge held that the said Decision of the Council of Ministers qualifies the Scheme of Service and it is 15 incorporatedinit Hedrew, however, adistinctionbetween the interpretation of a Scheme of Service b\ the Public Service Commission andtheinterpretationof the aboveDecision ofthe Council of Ministers, andproceededto hold that mthe present case the test is "whether the interpretation adopted by the 20 Commission was reasonably open to it", whereas in the latter case "it is a legal construction of a document and if the Public Service Commission erred in interpreting it. the Court can intervene andgivethecorrect interpretation'' 25 30 According to thelearnedtrial Judge theprerequisites for the recognition of a post-graduate diploma by virtue of the above Decision of theCouncilof Ministers arethe following "(a)post-graduate diploma or title acquired after education abroad, (b)this diploma or title should not constitute a necessary qualification for thepost, 35 40 (c) thediplomaortitleshouldrelatetothedutiesof thepost, and (d) the diploma or title should have been acquired after education abroad either by a public servant during his service or by a person before his appointment in the public service " 143 A. Loizou.P. Republic v. Miltiadous
(1989)In concluding, the learnedtrial Judgeheldthat there "was no restriction as to the service to be credited to the public officer except that he can use this 'treated service' ('plasmatiki ipiresia')onceonly'\ Hefurther heldthat "thetrue construction to beplaced on thesaidCircularisthat the 'treated service' can 5 beusedbyapublicofficer atanystageofhiscareer, providedhe usesthis "treated seniceonceonly".Intheendthelearnedtrial Judge annulled the sub judice decision "for misconception of material facts, i.e. the facts relevant to the eligibility of the applicant for promotion, and misinterpretation of the relevant 10 provisions of the Circular ofthe Council of Ministers." In arguing the appeal before us, learned counsel for the commission relied on the following grounds of appeal: 15 "
- The trial judge erroneously held that the true construction tobeplacedonthe Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 12.655 is that the treated service' fplasmatiki ipiresia'). can be used by a public office at any stageof hiscareerprovided that heusesthis 'treated 20 service' only once.
- The trial Judge erroneously held that, though the Decision ofthe Council of MinistersNo. 12.655 qualities the scheme of service for the post in question and is 25 incorporated with it, it was not open to the Public Service Commission in reading together the said Decision with theschemeofserviceinquestion to adopt anv interpretation that wasreasonably open to it. 30
- Alternatively, even ifthis is a case where the court can intervene and give a legal construction to the said Decision, the trial Judge erroneously held that the only correct interpretation of the Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 12.655is that the 'treated service' can be 35 used by a public officer at any stage of his career. Further, the trial judge failed to consider arguments to the effect that such construction would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Public Service Law, (Law 33/1967 asamended)." 40 Learned counsel further argued forcefully that the relevant 144 3 C.L.R. Republic v. Miltiadous A. Loizou, P. Scheme of Service and the said Decision of the Council of Ministers should be applied and interpreted as a single document andthe test to be applied by the Court in the judicial control of the relevant decision of the Commission, is the test 5 which has been enunciated by a series of judgments of the Supreme Court, namely that the Court "will not interfere with theinterpretation giventoaparticular SchemeofServicebythe Public Service Commission, if the interpretation was a reasonable one on the basis of its wording." See inter alia 10 Papapetrou v. The Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. 61: Petsas v. The Republic, 3 R.S.C.C. 60; Soteriou v. The Republic
(1980)3 C.L.R. 237: Aivaliotis v. The Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 149; The Republic v. Aivaliotis
(1971)3 C.L.R. 89: and Kolokotronis r. TheRepublic
(1980)3C.L.R.418. 15 The sole issue that arises for consideration is whether the judicial control of the interpretation by·the Commission of the Scheme of Service andthe aforesaid Decision of the Council of Ministers shouldbegoverned bv different principles. 20 In ourviewthesaidDecisionisnothingbutanadditiontothe Schemes of Service. Indeed instead of taking the form it did take, it couldbe framed in such a way as to say that the clause inquestion shouldbeaddedattheendofeach SchemeofService 25 or that the saidclause or clauses beinserted at theend of every SchemeofService. The approach then of this Court to the interpretation of the Scheme of Service by the Commission cannot be the one 30 suggested in the judgment appealed against, but the one governing judicial control of the interpretation of the Schemes of servicebyan appointing organ. It doesnot make inmyview any difference because the two 35 texts, i.e. the Scheme of Service and the said Decision were embodied in separate documents. I am of the view that the answertothisproposition isinthenegative. Thisissobecause both texts deal with one and thesame matter, namely Schemes of service and at that the question of the qualifications of 40 "service"or "experience". AsamatteroffactthelearnedtrialJudgecorrectlyfound that 145 A.Loizou.P. Republic v.Miltiadous
(1989)the said Decision is incorporated into the Scheme of Service. Since it is so incorporated it forms pan and parcel and an integral pan of the Scheme of Service. When, therefore, the Commission was endeavouring to interpret the Scheme of Sendee in conjunction with the said Decision, it could 5 legitimately incorporate or addthesaid Decision tothe Scheme of service and proceed to interpret the whole text that resulted from such addition. Indeed the interpretation adopted by the Commission was 10 reasonablyopen toitonthebasisofthewordingofsuchScheme of Service as supplemented by the Decision in question, once the latter's interpretation was areasonable one. For all the above reasons I would allow the appeal and 15 consequently confirm thesubjudice decision. COURT: In the result the appeal is dismissed by majority with noorder astocosts. 20 Appeal dismissed. No orderas xo costs. 146