Cylaw

ZACHARIADES ν. REPUBLIC (1981) 3 CLR 124

(1981) 3 CLR 124

[*124] 1981 April 9

[DEMETRIADES, J.]

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION

PHIVOS B. ZACHARIADES.

Applicant,

THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH

1. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

2. THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR,

3. THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS,

Respondents.

(Case No. 58/80).

Public Officers-Appointments and promotions-Unless perfected or completed by offer and acceptance they can be freely revoked-Sections 37(1) and (2) and 44(5) of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67)-Decision promoting applicant to post of Director-General Ministry of Interior-Revoked before perfection-Applicant has not acquired a legitimate interest and is not entitled to judicial redress.

Administer Law-Administrative acts-Revocation-Intended but never completed administrative, act-Can be freely revoked-Public Officers-Appointments or promotions-Unless completed by offer arid acceptance they can be revoked-Sections 37(1) and (2) and 44(5) of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law 33/67).

Recourse under Article 146 of the constitution-Legitimate interest-Article 146.2-Decision promoting applicant to post of Director-General Ministry of Interior-Revoked before it was perfected-Applicant has not acquired a legitimate interest-Not entitled to judicial redress.

Following the decision of the Council of Ministers to authorise the Minister of Interior to proceed, in concert with the Public Service Commission, to take steps for the filling of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior (“the said post”)[*125]a letter signed on behalf of the Director-General Of that Ministry was sent to the Chairman of the Commission requesting it to proceed forthwith with its filling. As the said post was a first entry and promotion post the Commission advertised the vacancy and a number of parsons, including the applicant who was holding the post of District Officer, submitted applications. The candidates were interviewed on the 11th, 22nd and 23rd January, 1980 and on the 30th January, 1980, the respondent Public Service Commission after deliberations and discussions on each candidate found that the applicant was in every respect superior to all the other candidates and decided to promote him to the said post.

On the 31st January, 1980, the Minister of Interior wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Commission and informed him that he was withdrawing the request for the filling of the “said post”, giving as a reason for doing so a study that was being carried out for the re-organization of his Ministry. In view of the is letter, the Commission met on the 2nd February, 1980 and decided to revoke their decision which had not, in the meantime, been communicated to the applicant.

On the 25th February, 1980, all candidates interviewed for the “said post” were, by letter, informed by the Commission that the post was not to be filled as a result of a request by the appropriate authority which was studying schemes for the re-organization of the Ministry. Hence this recourse by applicant against the decision of the respondent Public Service Commission not to proceed to give formal effect to its decision to appoint him to the said post.

On the question whether the applicant, as a result of the decision of the respondent commission to promote him to the said post, has acquired a legitimate interest and, thus, is entitled to judicial redress:

Held, that it is clear that unless a promotion. is perfected or completed by offer and acceptance, the Public Service Commission can freely revoke the “intended but never completed[*126]administrative act” (see sections 37(1) and (2) and 44(5)4 of the Public Service Law, 1967 Law 33/67 and Panayides v. Republic (1972) 3 C.L.R. 467 and (1973) 3 C.LR. 378 (C.A.)); that in this case the respondent Commission revoked its decision before it was perfected and therefore the applicant has not acquired a legitimate interest and is not entitled to judicial redress; accordingly his recourse must fail.

Application dismissed.

Cases referred to:

Contopoulos v. Republic, 1964 C.L.R. 347 at pp. 351-352;

Panayides v. Republic (1972) 3 C.L.R. 467 at p. 480; (1973)3 C.L.R. 378 at p. 383 (C.A.);

Geodelekian v. Republic (1970) 3 C.L.R. 64 at p. 68.

Recourse.

Recourse against the decision of respondent No. 1 not to proceed with the filling of the vacant post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior after they had selected the applicant for appointment to the said post.

G. Cacoyannis, for the applicant.

N. Charalambous, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent.

Cur.adv. vult.

DEMETRIADES J. read the following judgment. By his recourse the applicant attacks the decision of the respondents and in particular the decision of the first respondents not to proceed to give formal effect to their decision to appoint him in the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior and prays:-

1. Declaration of the Court that the omission of respondents [*127] No. 1 to proceed with the filing of the vacant post of the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior after they had selected the applicant for appointment to that post was null and void, as such omission was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Law and/or because it was made in excess r abuse of powers; and/or

2. Declaration of the Court that the omission of respondents No. 1 to appoint the applicant to the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, having selected him for such appointment, was null and void being contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Law and/or because it was made in excess or abuse of powers; and/or

3. Declaration of the Court that the decision of respondents No. 1 not to proceed with the filling of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of interior on the excuse of instructions received on 31.1.1980, from respondent No. 2, not to proceed with the filling of that post, because apparently there existed, under consideration, plans for the re-organization of the Ministry of Interior, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever, being contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Law and/or because it was made in excess or abuse of powers; and/or

4. Declaration of the Court that the act or decision of respondents No. I to accept and/or follow instructions and interventions from incompetent persons or authorities, and/or not the “proper authority” as specified in the Law, which led to the non filling of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of interior by them’, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever, being contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Law and/or because it was made in excess or abuse of powers;. and/or

5. Declaration of the Court that the decision of respondents No. 1 not to appoint “for the time being” the applicant to the vacant post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, communicated to the applicant[*128]by their letter dated the 25th February, 1980, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever, being contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Law and/or in that it was taken in excess or abuse of powers; and/or

6. Declaration of the Court that the intervention of respondent No. 2 to the duties and competences of respondents No. 1, and/or the “instruction” given by him to respondents No. I not to proceed for the time being” to the filling of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, because apparently there existed, under consideration, plans for the re-organization of the Ministry of Interior, was a decision and/or an act null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever, being contrary to the provisions of. the Constitution and/or the Law and/or outside the powers and competences of respondent No. 2 and/or because it was made in excess or abuse of powers and therefore such intervention and/or instruction ought to have been ignored by respondents No. 1; and/or

7. Declaration of the Court that the instruction given by respondent No. 2 to respondents No. 1 not to proceed with the filling of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior (communicated to respondents No. 1 by his letter dated 31.1.1980), was a decision and/or an act null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever, being contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Law and/or in that it was made in excess or abuse of powers; and/or

8. Declaration of the Court that any act, decision or omission of respondents No. 3, which in any way confirms and/or adopts and/or tolerates the “instruction” and/or intervention of respondent No. 2’ to respondents No. 1 as described in sub-paragraphs (1) to (7) above, was null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever, being contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and/or the Law and/or in that, it was made in excess or abuse of powers.

The applicant has been serving in the Public Service since[*129]January 1940. He is a B.Sc (Economics) of the London University, a degree which he obtained in 1957 whilst serving in the Civil Service. He is, also, a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society and a Fellow of the Royal Economic Society. He is now a District Officer posted at Paphos.

As a result of a submission made to the Council of Ministers by the Minister of Interior, dated the 20th October, 1978 (see copy of Annex 1 appended to the opposition), the Council of Ministers, by their decision No. 17.354 dated 26th October, 1978, decided-

(a) to extend the services of the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, who was then due for retirement, until the 24th March, 1979, and

(b) to authorise the Minister of Interior to proceed, in concert (en sinennoisi) with the first respondents, to take the soonest possible all necessary steps for the filling of the post of the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior.

Copy of the decision of the Council of Ministers, which is appended to the opposition as Annex 1, was, on the 4th November, 1978, communicated by the Secretary of the Council of Ministers to the Chairman of the first respondents.

On the 8th November, 1978, a letter signed by an official of the Ministry of Interior or behalf of the Director-General of that Ministry, was sent to the Chairman of the first respondents with regard to the said decision of the Council of Ministers. This letter, which is Annex 2 to the opposition, reads:

“Ενετάλην όπως αναφερθώ εις την Απόφασιν του Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου υπ' αρ. 17.354 της 26ης Οκτωβρίου, 1978, ήτις εκοινοποιήθη εις υμάς, επί του θέματος της πληρώσεως της θέσεως του Γενικού Διευθυντού του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, και να πληροφορήσω υμάς ως ακολούθως:-

2. Ο κ. Α. Αναστασίου, Γενικός Διευθυντής του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, θα εξακολουθήση να εκτελή τα καθήκοντα της θέσεως του μέχρι της 31ης Δεκεμβρίου, 1978. Από της 1ης Ιανουαρίου, 1979, ούτος θα διατελή επ' αδεία μέχρι της 24ης Μαρτίου, 1979, ότε αφυπηρετεί.

3. Λαμβανομένων υπ' όψιν των πολλαπλών ευθυνών [*130]της θέσεως του Γενικού Διευθυντού του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών καθώς και διά την ομαλήν και απρόσκοπτον λειτουργίαν των υπηρεσιών του Υπουργείου τούτου, το ημέτερον Υπουργείον θεωρεί αναγκαίον όπως η θέσις του Γενικού Διευθυντού πληρωθη από της 1ης Ιανουαρίου, 1979, ημερομηνίας καθ' ην αρχίζει ή περίοδος αδείας του κ. Αναστασίου.

4. Παρακαλείσθε όθεν όπως προβήτε εις τας σχετικάς διευθετήσεις διά την έγκαιρον δημοσίευσιν της θέσεως ούτως ώστε να καταστή δυνατή η πλήρωσίς της από της 1.1.1979.

5. Η πλήρωσις Θέσεως κατά την διάρκειαν της περιόδου απουσίας του κατόχου αυτής επ' αδεία προ της αφυπηρετήσεώς του προβλέπεται υπό του άρθρου 21 του περί Ερμηνείας Νόμου, Κεφ. 1.

(Υπ.) Χρ. Μαμμίδης

διά Γενικόν Διευθυντήν

Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών”.

(“I have been directed to refer to the Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 17.354 of the 26th October, 1978, which has been communicated to you, on the subject of the filling of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior and to inform you as follows:-

2. Mr. A. Anastassiou, Director-General of the Ministry of Interior, will continue to perform the duties of his post until the 31st December, 1978. As from 1st January, 1979 he will be on leave until the 24th March, 1979, when he will retire.

3. Taking into consideration the multiple responsibilities of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of interior and for the smooth and unobstructed functioning of the services of thi3 Ministry, our Ministry considers it necessary that the post of Director-General be filled as from 1st January, 1979, the date on which the leave of absence of Mr. Anastassiou commences.

4. You are therefore requested to make the necessary arrangements for the advertisement of the vacancy in time, so that the filling of the post may be rendered possible as from the 1.1.1979.

5. The filling of a post during the absence on leave[*131]prior to retirement of its holder is provided for by section 21 of the Interpretation Law, Cap. 1.

(Sgd) Chr. Mammides

for Director-General

Ministry of Interior”).

At their meeting of the 11th November, 1978, the first respondents considered the filling of the vacancy in the post of the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior-hereinafter to be mentioned as the “said post”-and decided that as the “said post” was a first entry and promotion post, to advertise the vacancy and to allow two weeks for the submission of applications (this decision of the first respondents is appended to the opposition as Annex 3), but on the 19th December, 1978, the Minister of Interior himself wrote to the Chairman of. The first respondents a letter (this is Annex 4 to the opposition) by which he informed him that certain difficulties connected with the scheme of service of the “said post” had arisen; that the Council of Ministers was studying the possibility of amending them, and that as the decision on this matter could take some time he requested him to postpone the publication of the post until a final decision was taken. Complying to this request of the Minister, the first respondents took no further action on the matter.

On the 12th March, 1979, another letter, signed on behalf of the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior (see Annex 5 to the opposition), was sent to the Chairman of the first respondents by which he was informed that there was going to be no change in the scheme of service of the post of the Director-General of the Ministry of Interior and was requested to proceed forthwith with its publication, if possible, in the issue of the Gazette of the following Friday, the 16th March, 1979. In compliance with this request, the post was advertised in Gazette No. 1508 of the 16th March, 1979 (photocopy of same was produced and is exhibit A).

As a result of the publication of the “said post”, a number of persons, one of whom was the applicant, submitted applications and on the 12th April, 1979, the first respondents decided to invite 19 of them, including the applicant, for interview (see Annex 6 to the opposition). As it appears from Annex 7 to the opposition, which are the minutes of the meeting of[*132]the first respondents held on the 8th May,1979, all 19 persons were interviewed on that day. However, before the first respondents took their decision, their term of office expired and a new Chairman and new members were appointed

At their meeting of the 12th November, 1979 (see Annex 8 to the Opposition), the new Public Service Commission decided, and very rightly so according to learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that they had to consider the filling of the “said post” afresh and that they had to invite all persons interviewed by the previous Public Service Commission, for a new interview. The candidates were interviewed on the 11th, 22nd and 23rd January, 1980 and on the 30th January, 1980, the first respondents, as it appears from the minutes of their meeting (Annex 13 to the opposition), after deliberations ad discussions on each candidate, found that the applicant was in every respect superior to all other candidates and decided to promote him to the “said post”.

The relevant extract from the minutes of the meeting of the first respondents of the 30th January, 1980, reads as follows:-

“Εν κατακλείδι, η Επιτροπή Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας, αφού εξήτασε και συνέκρινε την αξίαν, τα προσόντα, την πείραν και την σταδιοδρομίαν των υποψηφίων καθώς και την αρχαιότητα των υποψηφίων δημοσίων υπαλλήλων, βάσει των αιτήσεων (μετά των δικαιολογητικών), των Προσωπικών Φακέλλων και των Εμπιστευτικών Εκθέσεων περί των υποψηφίων δημοσίων υπαλλήλων, και αφού έλαβε ωσαύτως υπ' όψιν την απόδοσιν όλων των υποψηφίων κατά τας χωριστάς συνεντεύξεις των μετά της Επιτροπής, έκρινεν ότι ο κ. Φοίβος ΖΑΧΑΡΙΑΔΗΣ υπερτερεί εν τω συνόλω των υπολοίπων υποψηφίων, εύρε τούτον ως τον πλέον κατάλληλον και απεφάσισε να προαγάγη αυτόν εις την θέσιν του Γενικού Διευθυντού του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών από της 15.2.80”

(“In conclusion, the Public Service Commission, having considered and cornered, the merits,qualifications, experience and service of the candidates as well as the seniority of the candidates who are public officers, on the basis of the applications (with the justifications) the personal files and the confidential reports on the candidates who are public officers and having also taken into consideration [*133] the performance of all candidates during their personal interview with the Commission has found that Mr. Phivos ZACHARIADES was as a whole superior to all the other candidates found him to be the most suitable and decided to promote him to the post of Director-General Ministry of Interior as from 15.2.80”).

On the 31st January, 1980, the Minister of Interior wrote a letter to the Chairman of the first respondents and informed him that he was withdrawing the request for the filing of the “said post”, giving as a reason for doing so a study that was being carried out for the re-organization of his Ministry. In view of this letter (which is Annex 14 to the Opposition), the first respondents met on the 2nd February, 1980, and decided to revoke their decision which had not, in the meantime, been communicated to the applicant (see Annex 16 to the Opposition).

On the 25th February, 1980, all candidates interviewed for the “said post” ware by letter (Annex 17 to the opposition), informed by the first respondents that the post was not to be filled as a result of a request by the appropriate authority which was studying schemes for the re-organization of the Ministry.

On the 6th March, 1980, counsel for the applicant wrote the following letter to the Chairman of the first respondents:

“Κύριοι,

Ο πελάτης μας κ. Φοίβος Β. Ζαχαριάδης (Έπαρχος Πάφου) ο οποίος έχει υποβάλει αίτηση για τη θέση του Γενικού Διευθυντή στο Υπουργείο Εσωτερικών, μας έδωσε εντολή ν' απαντήσουμε στην επιστολή σας ημερομηνίας 25 Φεβρουαρίου, 1980.

Για να μπορέσουμε να συμβουλεύσουμε τον πελάτη μας για τα διαβήματα πού δικαιούται να λάβει, θα σας παρακαλέσουμε να μας δώσετε τις ακόλουθες επεξηγηματικές πληροφορίες

(1) Πότε και πώς ή 'αρμοδία Αρχή' σας έχει πληροφορήσει ότι μελετά σχέδιο για νέα διάθρωση του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών.

(2) Ποιά είναι στην προκειμένη περίπτωση η 'αρμοδία Αρχή'.

(3) Κατά πόσο τα σχέδια που μελετούνται προβλέπουν [*134] κατάργηση της θέσης του Γενικού Διευθυντή του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών.

(4) Κατά πόσο έχετε έγκυρη και θετική πληροφορία ότι το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο σαν το μόνο αρμόδιο σώμα πράγματι μελετά αναδιάρθρωση του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών.

Όπως θ' αντιλαμβάνεσθε, οι πληροφορίες που ζητούμε θα μας βοηθήσουν να συμβουλεύσουμε τον πελάτη μας κατά πόσο θα πρέπει να καταχωρηθεί προσφυγή στο Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο σύμφωνα με το Άρθρο 146 του Συντάγματος για την παράλειψη της Επιτροπής σας να προβεί στο σχετικό διορισμό εφόσο μάλιστα, όπως έχει περιέλθει σε γνώση μας, μετά τις συνεντεύξεις της με τους διαφόρους υποψηφίους η Επιτροπή σας πήρε την απόφαση να διορίσει τον πελάτη μας στην πιο πάνω θέση.

Βέβαια, δεν χρειάζεται να σας υπενθυμίσουμε τις πρόνοιες του Άρθρου 29 του Συντάγματος σχετικά με τα χρονικά όρια μέσα στα οποία θα πρέπει να μας απαντήσετε.

Διατελούμε μετά τιμής

Π. Λ. ΚΑΚΟΓΙΑΝΝΗΣ & ΣΙΑ”.

(“Gentlemen,

Our client Mr. Phivos B. Zachariades (District Officer Paphos) who has submitted an application for the post of Director-General, Ministry of Interior, has instructed us to reply to your letter dated 25th February, 1980.

In order to be able to advise our client on the steps he is entitled to take, we would request you to give us the following explanatory information :-

(1) When and how the appropriate authority’ has informed you that it is studying a scheme for the re–organization of the Ministry of Interior.

(2) Which is in the present case the ‘appropriate authority’.

(3) Whether the schemes under consideration provide for the abolition of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior.

(4) Whether you have valid and positive information[*135]that the Council of Ministers as the only appropriate body is in fact studying the re-organization of the Ministry of Interior.

As you understand, the information we are asking will help us advise our client whether he should file a recourse to the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 146 of the Constitution for the omission of your Commission to proceed with the said appointment since, as has come to our knowledge, after the interviews with the various candidates your Commission has decided to appoint our client to the above post.

Of course there is no need to remind you of the provision of Article 29 of the Constitution regarding the time limit within which you must reply.

Yours sincerely

P. L. Cacoyannis & Co.”).

The reply of the first respondents to counsel’s letter, which gave rise to these proceedings, is the following:-

“Έχω οδηγίες να αναφερθώ στην επιστολή σας με αριθμό Γ.14/80, σχετικά με την κενή θέση Γενικού Διευθυντή του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, και να σας δώσω τις ακόλουθες πληροφορίες:

(α) Στις 31.1.80 η αρμοδίη αρχή με επιστολή της ζήτησε από την Επιτροπή Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας να μην προχωρήσει επί του παρόντος στην πλήρωση της θέσεως, γιατί βρίσκονται υπό μελέτη σχέδια για νέα διάρθρωση του Υπουργείου.

(β) Αρμόδια αρχή είναι ο Υπουργός Εσωτερικών.

(γ) Στις ερωτήσεις στις παραγράφους (3) και (4) της επιστολής σας η Επιτροπή Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας είναι αναρμόδια να απαντήσει.

Με εκτίμηση,

Για Πρόεδρο

Επιτροπής Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας”.

(“I am directed to refer to your letter C. 14/80 regarding the vacant post of Director-General, Ministry of Interior, and to give you the following information:–[*136]

(a) On 31 .1.80 the appropriate authority has by letter asked the Public Service Commission not to proceed for the time being with the filling of the post, because schemes for the re-organization of the Ministry are under consideration.

(b) The appropriate authority is the Minister of Interior.

With respect.

For Chairman

Public Service Commission”).

As I understand the complaints of the applicant in this recourse, they are the following:-Whether-

(1) the first respondents, having reached their decision to fill in the said vacant post, were entitled to revoke it;

(2) the Minister of Interior is the appropriate authority in. matters relating to the appointment of the Director-General of his Ministry; and

(3) the first respondents, once they had reached their decision, were bound to perfect and/or complete the promotion

Before proceeding, however, to deal with the above issues, I feel that I must examine which is the Body that decided to submit the request to the first for the filling of the said post and who in fact did submit such a request. After carefully reading and comparing .the contents of Annexes 1 and 2 to the opposition, which are appended herewith, 1 find that the decision was taken by the Council of Ministers; that after this decision was taken, the Council of Ministers, acting through their Secretary, submitted the request to the first respondents, and that the Minister was only authorised to see that this decision was to be put into effect the soonest possible.

Having considered the facts of this ease, 1 find that the first issue that has to be decided is whether the applicant, as a result of the decision of the first respondents to promote him to the post of Director-General of the Ministry of interior, has[*137]acquired a legitimate interest and, thus, is entitled to judicial redress.

As I have earlier mentioned, the “said post” is a first entry and promotion post and the matter is governed, therefore, by the provisions of sections 37 and 44 of the aforesaid law, Law 33/67, which read:-

S.37-” (1) A permanent appointment shall be effected by a written offer made by the Commission to the person selected for appointment and accepted by him in writing.

(2) The offer shall state the remuneration offered and the other terms and conditions of service attached to the office to which appointment is offered.

(3) When the person selected has signified his acceptance of the offer made to him and the report of the Government Medical Officer who has examined him is satisfactory, the Commission shall inform the person selected in writing that he has been appointed and specify the date from which his appointment takes effect.

(4) A permanent appointment shall be published in the official Gazette of the Republic as soon as possible after it has taken effect.

(5) Save with the prior approval of the Council of Ministers, no person shall be appointed to, or serve in, an office in a Department where his spouse, child, brother or sister is serving”.

S.44-”(1) No officer shall be promoted to another office, unless-

(a) a vacancy exists in that office:

Provided that in the case of offices with a combined establishment, promotion from the lower to the higher office or grade of that office may be made irrespectively of whether there is a vacancy in the higher office or grade or not, and in accordance with any general directions given by the Council of Ministers in this respect; .

(b) he possesses the qualifications laid down in the schemes of service for that office;[*138]

(d) he has not been punished during the preceding two years for any disciplinary offence of a serious nature.

(2) The claims of officers to promotion shall be considered on the basis of merit, qualifications and seniority.

(3) In making a promotion, the Commission shall have due regard to the annual confidential reports on the candidates and to the recommendations made in this respect by the Head of Department in which the vacancy exists.

(4) When an officer is promoted to an office in which he has been acting, his promotion may take effect from the date on which the vacancy occurred or the date from which he was appointed to act, whichever is the later.

(5) A promotion shall be effected by a written offer made by the Commission to the officer to be promoted and accepted by him in writing. The offer shall specify, inter alia, the date of promotion, the salary payable and the incremental date, if any.

(6) Promotions shall be published in the official Gazette of the Republic.

(7) For the purposes of this section ‘offices with a combined establishment’ mean two or more separate offices or two or more grades of the same office which have a common establishment”.

Counsel for the applicant argued that once the Public Service Commission had decided to promote the applicant to the “said post”, they were under a duty to proceed and perfect and/or complete it. The question whether the Public Service Commission is under a duty to fill a vacant post existing in the Public Service was answered in the case of Contopoulos v. The Republic, 1964 C.L.R. p. 347, in which Triantafyllides J., as he then was, .in delivering the unanimous judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, said at pp. 351-352:-

“In the opinion of the Court the duties of the Public Service Commission under Article 125 are limited .to matters concerning [*139] the officers and not the offices involved (vide Papapetrou and the Republic, 2 R.S.C.C. p. 61 at p. 66). It is not for the Public Service Commission, therefore, to decide when a vacancy is to be filled by way of promotion as this matter lies within the competence of the Executive Branch of the Government. It is only when such a vacancy is to be filled that the Commission has exclusive competence to decide on who is to be promoted or appointed to the post in question.

In the present case, therefore, the Commission quite properly took into account the request of the Ministry of interior not to fill the vacancies in the post of Land Officer pending the re-organization of the Department concerned”.

Stasinopoulos, in his book “MathimataDiikitikouDikeou, 1957 ed. p. 311, expresses his opinion on the matter as follows:-

“Ο διορισμός υπαλλήλου κατατάσσεται, κατά τους γενικούς κανόνας του δικαίου των διοικητικών πράξεων, εις την κατηγορίαν των πράξεων διακριτικής εξουσίας. Η δημοσία αρχή εν γένει δεν έχει υποχρέωσιν ίνα πληρώση μίαν κενωθείσαν θέσιν, αλλά κέκτηται διακριτικήν εξουσίαν ίνα αποφασίση, εάν θα προέλθη ή ου εις την πλήρωσιν αυτής, ως και να κρίνη πότε θα επιστή ο εύθετος χρόνος διά την πλήρωσιν ταύτην. Ένεκα τούτου, λέγομεν ότι, κατά γενικόν κανόνα, ο διορισμός δεν είναι υποχρέωσις της Διοικήσεως, εν περιπτώσει δε καθ' ην η Διοίκησις αρνείται να πληρώση μίαν θέσιν, δεν είναι δυνατόν να θεωρηθή ότι παραλείπει οφειλομένην ενέργειαν”

(“The appointment of an employee is classified, according to the general principles of the law of administrative acts, in the category of acts of discretionary power. The public authority in general has no obligation to fill a vacant post, but has a discretionary power to decide, whether to proceed or not with its filling, and also to Judge when the proper time for its filling will come. Because of this, we say that, as a general rule, the appointment is not an obligation of the administration, and in case the administration refuses to fill a post, it is not[*140]possible to consider that it omits to do an act which ought to be done”).

The question as to when a promotion or appointment is effected, i.e. when the lawful existence of an administrative act commences, is dealt with in the case of Panayides v. The Republic, (1972) 3 C.L.R. 467. A. Loizou J. in his judgment in that case had this to say at p 480-

“It is important therefore in this respect to examine the exact moment at which the formal validity of the administrative act that is to say its lawful existence commences. For that matter a distinction should be drawn between this and the substantial effect of the administrative act that is to say their legal effect. The former commences from the time at which the procedure under the law by which they came into existence is completed. The latter commences from a certain time which may either coincide, “with the time of the commencement of their formal validity or it may be a subsequent or prior point in time”.

And at p. 482-

“An administrative act as it has been stated is a declaration of the will of the administrative organ. Before it is declared the will has to take shape towards the stage of the formulation of the administrative will. The administrative procedure for its production corresponds and results to its issuing, i.e. to the drafting, the insertion of the date and the signing by the appropriate organ. See Stasinopoulos (supra) 359. Hence, ‘issuing’ is called the formulation with certainty of the will which is intended to be declared by the administrative act. Only when the will is declared, i.e. when outward direction is given to it towards one or more persons, with the purpose that by its will their position will be affected it is that this will has social significance and the law is interested in it and its consequences.

Until so declared, the administrative act constitutes interne of the administration. After however of its communication, it becomes binding on the administration and it is then that the act, in our case the act of promotion, came into existence. Being as such a favourable administrative [*141] act, it cannot be freely revoked thereafter. Whereas before the administration can freely amend or abandon the intended but never completed administrative act”.

It is clear from the above quoted authority and sections 37(1) and (2) and 44(5) that unless a promotion is perfected or completed by offer and acceptance, the first respondents can freely revoke the “intended but never completed administrative act”. This view was also held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Panayides v. The Republic, (1973) 3 C.L.R. 378 at p 383, and Geodelekian v. The Republic, (1970) 3 C.L.R. 64 at p. 68

In the present case, the first respondents revoked their decision before it was perfected and I, therefore, find that the applicant has not acquired a legitimate interest and is not entitled to judicial redress.

In view of the above, I find it unnecessary to deal with the other issues arising in this case.

The application is hereby ,dismissed with costs in favour of the respondents, if claimed.

Application dismissed with costs.

“ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ 1

ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΟΝ

Απόσπασμα εκ των Πρακτικών της Συνεδρίας του Υπουργικού

Συμβουλίου Ημερομηνίας 26.10.78

Παράτασις των υπηρεσιών του κ. Α.Κ. Αναστασίου,

Γενικού Διευθυντού Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών

Απόφασις υπ' (Πρότασις υπ. αρ. 855/78)

Αρ. 17.354 14. Το Συμβούλιον απεφάσισεν—

α) αναφορικώς προς την Απόφασιν υπ' Αρ. 16.225, όπως επιτρέψη, προς το δημόσιον συμφέρον, δυνάμει του εδαφίου (4) του άρθρου 8 του περί Συντάξεων Νόμου, Κεφ. 311 και Νόμων 17 του 1960A, 9 και 18 του 1967, 51 και 119 του 1968, 9 του 1971, 65 του 1973 και 42 του 1976, εις τον κ. Α.Κ. Αναστασίου, Γενικόν Διευ[*142]θυντήν του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, να παραμείνη εις την υπηρεσίαν διά μικράν εισέτι περίοδον, ήτοι μέχρι της 24ης Μαρτίου, 1979· και

β) εξουσιοδοτήση τον Υπουργόν Εσωτερικών να προβή εν συνεννοήσει μετά της Επιτροπής Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας, εις τα δέοντα διά την πλήρωσιν της θέσεως Γενικού Διευθυντού Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, το ταχύτερον δυνατόν.

Πρόεδρον

Επιτροπής Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας,

Η ύπερθεν Απόφασις, ομού μετά της Προτάσεως υπ.' Αρ. 855/78, διαβιβάζεται προς από κοινού συνεργασίαν μετά του Γ.Δ., Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, προς τον οποίον απεστάλη αντίγραφον της ως άνω Αποφάσεως, αναφορικώς προς την υποπαράγραφον (β) αυτής.

(Υπ.) Κ. Κλεάνθους

Γραμματεύς

Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου

4η Νοεμβρίου, 1978.

(Κν.: Γ.Δ., Υπουργείου Οικονομικών). ”

“(APPENDIX I

COPY

Extract from the Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Ministers dated 26.10.78.

Extension of the services of Mr. A.K. Anastassiou,

Director–General of the Ministry of Interior.

(Submission No. 855/78)

Decision

No. 17.354

14. The Council decided-

(a) With reference to Decision No. 16.225, to allow, in the public interest, in accordance with sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Pensions Law, Cap. 311 and Laws 17 of 1960A, 9 and 18 of 1967, 51 and 119 of 1968, 9 of 1971, 65 of 1973 and 42 of 1976, Mr. A.K. Anastassiou, Director-General, Ministry of[*143]Interior, to remain in the service for a still short period, i.e. until the 24th March, 1979; and

(b) authorize the Minister of Interior to proceed, in concert with the Public Service Commission, with the necessary arrangements for the filling of the Post of Director-General, Ministry of Interior, the soonest possible.

Chairman,

Public Service Commission,

The above Decision, together with submission No. 855/75, is transmitted for co-operation with the D.G., Ministry of Interior to whom copy of the above Decision was sent, with regard to sub-paragraph (b) thereof.

(Sgd) C. Cleanthous

Secretary

Council of Ministers.

4th November, 1978.

(Copy to: D.-G., Ministry of Finance))”.

“ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΟΝ

ΠΡΟΤΑΣΙΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΙΚΟΝ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΝ

Παράτασις των υπηρεσιών του κ. Α.Κ. Αναστασίου,

Γενικού Διευθυντού Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών

Το Υπουργικόν Συμβούλιον διά της αποφάσεώς του υπ' αρ. 16225 της 27ης Σεπτεμβρίου, 1977, απεφάσισεν όπως, προς το δημόσιον συμφέρον, παρατείνη τας υπηρεσίας του κ. Α.Κ. Αναστασίου, Γενικού Διευθυντού του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, μέχρι της 31ης Δεκεμβρίου, 1978.

2. Επειδή οι λόγοι διά τους οποίους ελήφθη ή ως άνω απόφασις εξακολουθούν να υφίστανται, ήτοι η αναδιοργάνωσις του Υπουργείου Αμύνης και η υπεύθυνος διαχείρησις των ηυξημένων ευθυνών του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, το Υπουργείον Εσωτερικών θεωρεί αναγκαίαν την περαιτέρω παράτασιν των υπηρεσιών του κ. Αναστασίου διά μικράν περίοδον ήτοι μέχρι της 24.3.1979 διά να δοθή η ευκαιρία εις την Επιτροπήν Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας να προβή εις τον διορισμόν καταλλήλου διαδόχου του από της 1ης Ιανουαρίου, 1979. Από της 1.1.79 ο κ. Αναστασίου θα είναι επ' αδεία προ της αφυπηρετήσεώς του μέχρι της 24.3.79.[*144]

3. Ο Υπουργός Εσωτερικών, ο οποίος θα εισαγάγη το θέμα, θα εισηγηθή όπως αι υπηρεσίαι του κ. Αναστασίου παραταθούν, προς το δημόσιον συμφέρον, μέχρι της 24.3.1979 και όπως δοθή έγκρισις διά την πλήρωσιν της θέσεως.

ΥΠΟΥΡΓΕΙΟΝ ΕΣΩΤΕΡΙΚΩΝ

ΛΕΥΚΩΣΙΑ

(Υ.Ε. Π. 11)

20 Οκτωβρίου, 1978”.

“(SUBMISSION TO THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS

Extension of the services of Mr. A.K. Anastassiou,

Director-General, Ministry of Interior;

The Council of Ministers by its decision No. 16225 of the 27th September, 1977, decided that, in the public interest, the services of Mr. A.K. Anastassiou, Director-General of the Ministry of Interior be extended up to the 31st December, 1978.

2. Because the reasons for which the above decision was taken continue to exist, i.e. the reorganization of the Ministry of Defence arid the reliable administration of the increasing responsibilities of the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry f Interior considers expedient the further extension of the services of Mr. Anastassiou for a short period i.e. until 24.3.1979, in, order to give the chance to the Public Service Commission to proceed with the appointment of suitable successor as from 1st January, 1979 As from 111979 MrAnastassiou will be on leave prior to retirement until the 24.3.79

3. The Minister of Interior, who will propose the subject, will submit that the services of Mr. A.K. Anastassiou, be extended, in the public interest, until 24 3 79 and that approval be given for the filling of the post.

Ministry of Interior

Nicosia

(Y.E.II.11)

20th October, 1978”).[*145]

“ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ 2

ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΟΝ

Αρ. Φακ. Υ.Ε. 290/60/5 ΥΠΟΥΡΓΕΙΟΝ ΕΣΩΤΕΡΙΚΩΝ

ΛΕΥΚΩΣΙΑ

8 Νοεμβρίου, 1978

Πρόεδρου Επιτροπής

Δημοσίας Υπηρεσίας,

Ενετάλην όπως αναφερθώ εις την απόφασιν του Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου υπ. αρ, 17.354 της 26ης Οκτωβρίου, 1978, ήτις εκοινοποιήθη εις υμάς, επί του θέματος της πληρώσεως της θέσεως του Γενικού Διευθυντού του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, και να πληροφορήσω υμάς ως ακολούθως:—

2. Ο κ. Α. Αναστασίου, Γενικός Διευθυντής του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών, θα εξακολούθηση να εκτελή τα καθήκοντα της θέσεώς του μέχρι της 31ης Δεκεμβρίου 1978. Από της 1ης Ιανουαρίου 1979, ούτος θα διατελή επ' αδεία μέχρι της 24ης Μαρτίου, 1979, ότε αφυπηρετεί.

3. Λαμβανομένων υπ' όψιν των πολλαπλών ευθυνών της θέσεως του Γενικού Διευθυντού του Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών καθώς και διά την ομαλήν και απρόσκοπτον λειτουργίαν των υπηρεσιών του Υπουργείου τούτου το ημέτερον Υπουργείον θεωρεί αναγκαίον όπως η θέσις του Γενικού Διευθυντού πληρωθη από της 1ης Ιανουαρίου 1979, ημερομηνίας καθ' ην αρχίζει η περίοδος αδείας του κ. Αναστασίου.

4. Παρακαλείσθε όθεν όπως προβείτε εις τας σχετικάς διευθετήσεις διά την έγκαιρον δημοσίευσιν της θέσεως ούτως ώστε να καταστή δυνατή η πλήρωσίς της από της 1.1.1979.

5. Η πλήρωσις θέσεως κατά την διάρκειαν της περιόδου απουσίας του κατόχου αυτής επ' αδεία προ της αφυπηρετήσεώς του προβλέπεται υπό του άρθρου 21 του περι Ερμηνείας Νόμου, Κεφ. 1.

(Υπ.) Χρ. Μαμμίδης

διά Γενικόν Διευθυντήν

Υπουργείου Εσωτερικών

Κοιν.: Γενικόν Διευθυντήν Υπουργείου

Οικονομικών.” [*146]

(“APPENDIX 2

No. M.I.290/60/5

COPY

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR NICOSIA

8th November, 1978

Chairman

Public Service Commission

I have been directed to refer to the Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 17.354 of the 26th October, 1978, which has been communicated to you, on the subject of the filling of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior and to inform you as follows:-

3. Taking into consideration the multiple responsibilities of the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Interior and for the smooth and unobstructed functioning of the services of this Ministry, our Ministry considers it necessary that the post of Director-General be filled as from 1st January, 1979, the date on which the leave of absence of Mr. Anastassiou commences.

4. You are therefore requested to make the necessary arrangements for the advertisement of the vacancy in time, so that the filling of the post may be rendered possible as from the 1.1.1979.

5. The filling of a post during the absence on leave prior to retirement of its holder is provided for by section 21 of the Interpretation Law, Cap. 1.

(Sgd) Chr. Mammides

for Director-General

Ministry of Interior”).

cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο