clr/1966/1966_3_612.pdf

(2)(//)—Construction of—The aforesaid requirement covers the case of a person (such as the applicant in the present case) who exceptionally obtained such a degree after a shorter period of actual studies, during which period the said person covered the work for which normally a threeyears' courseof studies is required—Therefore the decision of therespondents refusing to classify theapplicant as schoolmistress, Class " Β ", as aforesaid, on the ground that she obtained her aforesaid degree after a period of actual studies abroad of only two years is bad in law—And the said decision has to be declared null and void as being contrary ίο law—And in excess and abuse of power. Administrative Law—Decision erroneous in law—Contrary to law—And in excess and abuse of powers—Article 146, paragraph 1,of the Constitution—See underSecondary Educa­ tion above. Statutes—Construction of—Presumption that a statute does not intend an injustice or absurdity—Maxwell, on Interpretation of Statutes, Mth Ed., p. 193, adopted. The respondents in this case held that the applicant was not eligible to be classified as schoolmistress, Class " Β", because section 11

(2)(

1. ii)of Law 10 of 1963 (supra) requires 612 as a qualification for such classification " a degree for which is required a post-gymnasium course of actual studies, abroad, for at least three years ", whereas applicant, exceptionally, had obtained such a degree after a shorter period of studies viz. two years' course of studies in the United Kingdom, during which she covered the work of the normal three-years course of training. The learned Justice in granting the application and setting aside the decision of the respondents :— Held, ι (
2. a)this case turns upon the construction to be placed upon the relevant provision in the said section 11

(2)(

1. ii)(supra). \ (
2. b)In construing a statute there is presumption against ' such statute intending an injustice or absurdity. I

(2)Bearing such principle in mind, I have reached the \ conclusion that the three years' actual studies requirement under section

(11)(ii) (supra) should be taken to refer to the ' length of the course of studies abroad normally required for a given qualification, and that a person, such as the applicant, who succeeds, exceptionally, to obtain in a shorter period of time, a degree for which, normally, a course of studies of three years is required, is just as eligible for classifi­ cation under section 11

(2)(ii) of Law 10 of 1963 (supra), as a person who obtains thesamedegreeinthe normal period of three years.

(3)Therefore, the respondents erred in law, and their decision complained of has to be declared null and void as being contrary to law and in excess and abuse of powers and the matter has to be reconsidered afresh by the appropriate authority in the light of this judgment. Decisionof respondents annulled. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the Review Committee —which functioned under the Greek Communal Chamber— refusing to Applicant classification as a secondary education schoolmistress Class B, under section 11 of the Schoolmasters of Communal Secondary Schools Law, 1963 (Greek Commu­ nal Chamber Law 10/63). ~ G. Ladas, for the Applicant. G. Tornaritis, for the Respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 613 1966 Mar. 14, June 22 ANTIGONI GEORGHUDOU and THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC 1966 Mar. 14, June 22 ANTIGONI GEORGHIADOU and THE ATTORNEYGENIRAL OF ' THE REPUBLIC The following Judgment was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.: Inthis Case theApplicant complains, in effect, against a decision (see exhibit 1) of the Review Committee—which functioned under the Greek Communal Chamber—refusing finally to Applicant classification as a secondary education schoolmistress, class B, under section 11 of the Schoolmasters of Communal Secondary Schools Law, 1963 (Greek Communal Chamber Law 10/63). Such decision, having been approved by theGreekCommu­ nal Chamber, was communicated to Applicant by letter dated 19th February, 1965, (see exhibit 4). This recourse was filed on the 9th April, 1965. As, in the meantime, the Transfer of Exercise' of Competences of the Greek Communal Chamber and Ministry of Education Law, (Law 12/65) was enacted, this Case has been quite properly filed against the Attorney-General of the Republic, under sections 14 and 15 of Law 12/65. The classification of Applicant, who is a schoolmistress teaching English, had come before the Review Committee, because Applicant had complained to such Committee on the 3rd December, 1964 (see exhibit 3), after she had been given,on the27th November, 1964, anappointment classifying her only as a schoolmistress class C (see exhibit 7). By its decision (exhibit 1) the Review Committee held that Applicant was not entitled to be classified in class Β —as she claimed—because section II

(2)(

1. ii)of Law 10/63 requires as a qualification for classification in class Βa degree for which is required a post-gymnasium course of actual studies, abroad, for at least three years— ("πτυχίον... δια το όποιον απαιτείται 3ετής τουλάχιστον μεταγυμνασιακή, πραγματική φοίτησις εις το έξωτερικόν")— and the relevant degree obtained by Applicant has been obtained during a' shorter period of studies; as a matter of fact Applicant obtained such degree after a two years' course of studies in the United Kingdom. The Review Committeeconcluded its decision by recording that, though it recognized the abilities and the excellent scientific qualifications of Applicant, it had with regret to reject her application because her post-gymnasium course of studies had not actually been a three-year one. As it appears from the documents which were before 614 the Review Committee at the time when it reached its sub judice decision, and which documents are exhibits 2 and 2(
2. a)in these proceedings, it has been certified by the Brighton vTraining College—the institution where Applicant studied in the U.K.—that Applicant has "attended a two-year fulltime course of teacher training at this College beginning in Septem­ ber 1960 and thatin this shortenedcourse of training, specially designed for older more mature students she covered the work of the normal three-year course of training. At the end of thecourse she was examined by the London University Institute of Education and the College, taking the same examinations as the three-year students, and successfully passed the examinations. As a result of her course she obtained the Teacher's Certificate of the London University Institute of Education and therefore became a 'qualified teacher' " It'does not appear to be in issue in this Case that Applicant would qualify, in every respect, for classification in class B, under section 11

(2)(ii) of Law 10/63, had the actual period of her studies been a three-year one; the only reason for which the Review Committee has refused classification to Applicant in class Β was that Applicant had not studied abroad actually for threeyears, but for two years only. Thus, this Case turns upon the construction to be placed upon the relevant provision in the said section ll

(2)(ii). In construing any statute there is a presumption against such statuteintendinganinjustice orabsurdity. (See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 11th edition, p. 193). Bearing such principle in mind, I have reached theconclution that the proper construction of section ll

(2)(ii) is that it is sought thereby to ensure possession, by those to be classified by virtue thereof, of a certain standard of education, which is to be reached through acquiring a degree for which there is requireda period of actual studies abroad of at least three years; qualifications acquired by correspondence are thus excluded; but in my opinion, the three years' actual studies abroad requirement should be taken to refer to the length of the course of studies abroad normally required for a giveirqualification, and a person-who succeeds, except­ ionally, to obtain, in a shorter period of time, a degree for which, normally, a course of studies abroad of three years is required, is just as eligible for classification under section 615 1966 Mar. 14, June 22 ANTIGONI GEORGHIADOU and THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC 1966 Mar. 14, June 22 ANTIGONI GEORGHIADOU and THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC ll

(2)(ii) of Law 10/63, as a person who obtains the same degree in the normal period of three years. As a result, I am of the view that the Review Committee erred in law in concluding that Applicant was not eligible for classification in class B, under section ll

(2)(ii), because she obtained a degree—for which a three years* course of studies abroad is normally required—in only two years; therefore, its sub judice decision has to be declared to be null and void and of no effect whatsoever, as being contrary to law and in excess and abuse of powers, and the matter has to be reconsidered afresh by the appropriate authority, in the light of this Judgment. In view of the above it is not necessary to deal with any other ground raised by Applicant against the sub judice decision of the Review Committee. Regarding costs, I have decided to award Applicant £15., against costs. Sub judice decision annulled. Order for costs as aforesaid. 616