clr/1967/1967_3_350.pdf

(1)—Applicants' classification as officials of Secondary Education Schools at Famagusta under section 3 of the Law—Validity of relevant decision—Taking into account previous temporary appointments of Applicants— Did not vitiate the exercise of the relevant powers of the appropriate organ under section 35

(1)of the Law—Chnstodoulou and The Greek Communal Chamber, reported in this Part at p. 50 ante, distinguishable. The Applicants in this recourse complain against the decision of the Respondents concerning their classification as officials of Secondary Education Schools at Famagusta, made under s. 3 of the Officials of Secondary Education Schools Law,1964 (Greek Communal Law 8/64). In November, 1961Applicants were given temporary appointments and they were informed that such appointments were of a temporary character, making no distinction between those with past service and first entrants, because due to lack of time it had not been possible to study each case—taking into account qualifications, past service, etc.—and to prepare appropriate appointments; it was added that matters should be put right in a few months. Eventually Law8/64 (supra) wasenacted and they were given the subjudice appointments against which they now complain. 350 It was a common ground that such appointments were given to them byvirtueofthe provisions ofs. 35

(1)of Law 8/64,which provided that Secondary Education Schools* officials, found in service on the enactment of such Law, were to be given new appointments in the light of the previous post, the past salary, the qualifications, and the years and record of service of each one; such appointments were to be in respect of organic posts created by Law 8/64. Held,

(1). It is quite correct that the said 1961 appointments were not the outcome of due consideration of the individual merits of each appointee—especially as qualifications and past service were not duly taken into account in making them.

(2)But,along with the previous post and past salary, section 35

(1)of Law8/64haslaid down, ascriteria for the new appointments under its provisions, the qualifications and the years and record of service of those to be appointed; so, the factors which were not duly considered in 1961 were brought fully into the picture in 1964. As a result, it was ensured that the new appointments would be made on the basis of the totality ol' relevant considerations, thus curing anyerrors that might have occurred in 1961.

(3)Moreover, once section 35

(1)of Law 8/64 prescribed in express terms that the previous posts and past salaries of the Applicants had to be taken into account no question could arise of the appropriate organ erring intaking them into account when deciding on the new appointments challenged by these recourses.

(4)1 cannot, therefore, hold that the taking into account of the 1961 temporary appointments of the Applicants hasin any wayvitiated theexercise ofthe relevant powers under section 35

(1)of Law 8/64.

(5)The present Cases are definitely distinguishable from Clmstadoidou and The Greek Communal Chamber (reported in this Part at p. 50 ante) where the Court held that it was wrong to treat as"theappointment last offered" tothe Applicant in that case—for the purposes of section 42(

1. a)of the Masters of Communal Secondary Schools Law, 1962(Greek Communal Law 10/63)—a previous appointment which had been referred back for reconsideration, by the Complaints Committee in the Greek Education Office, before theenactment of the relevant legislation, Law 10/63; it was found in that case, inter alia, 351 1967 May 27 ANTONIOS KYRIAKOU AND OTHERS v. GREEK COMMUNAL CHAMBER AND ANOTHER 1967 May 27 ANTONIOS KYRIAKOU A N D OTHERS v. GREEK COMMUNAL CHAMBER AND ANOTHER that the said appointment had lost its finality and could not be relied upon for the purposes of section 42(
2. a)of Law 10/63, which, unlike section 35

(1)of Law 8/64, did not provide for new appointments to new organic posts after new consideration of all relevant factors, but only preserved the status quo flowing from "the appointment last offered" before its enactment.

(6)For the above reasons the Applicants fail on the general issue, which they have raised as against the validity of the subjudicedecisions,and these recourses willhave nowtoproceed to hearing on the remaining issues. Orderin terms, Cases referred to: Christodoulouand The Greek Communal Chamber, reported in this Part p. 50 ante, distinguished. Recourse. Recourse against the validity of the decision of the Respondents concerning the classification of Applicants as officials of Secondary Education Schools at Famagusta. A. Triantafyllides, for the Applicants. G. Tornaritis, for the Respondents. Cur. adv. vult. The following Interim Decision was delivered by: TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.: The Applicants in these Cases complain, in effect, against their classification as officials of Secondary Education schools at Famagusta, as made under section 3 of the Officials of Secondary Education Schools Law, 1964 (Greek Communal Law 8/64). The Applicants were given permanent appointments in the service of Greek Secondary Education on the 19th October, 1964 (see exhibits 3(a), 3(b), 3(c)); the Applicants in Cases 52/65 and 57/65 having been classified thereby in grade C and the Applicant in Case 60/65 having been classified in grade B. They all objected against the said appointments on the 2nd November, 1964 (see exhibits

(4a),

(5a), 6(a)). Their objections weredetermined, and rejected, by the Review Committee, which was functioning at the material time in the Greek Education Office of the Greek Communal Chamber, and they were informed accordingly by letters dated 5th February, 19th February and 29th January, 1965, respectively (see exhibits 4

(6), 5(b\ 6(b) ). 352 In view of their similarity these Cases were heard together to begin with. Counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the subjudice decisions should be annulled because there have been wrongly taken into account, for the purposes of Law 8/64, the salaries under, and the terms of, temporary appointments which were given to the Applicants in

1. It iscorrect that in November, 1961,temporary appointments were given to the Applicants (see exhibit 2 which consists of the temporary appointments given to the Applicants in Cases 52/65 and 60/65—the similar temporary appointments given to theApplicant inCase 57/65not beingavailable). Then, on the 14th November, 1961, the Head of the Department of Secondary and Higher Education in the Greek Education Office informed Secondary School officials, such as the Applicants, through the respective School Committees, that/ the appointments given to them were of a temporary character, making no distinction between those with past service and firstentrants,because due to lack of time it had not been possible to study each case—taking into account qualifications, past service, etc.—and to prepare appropriate appointments; it was added that matters would be put right in a few months (see exhibit 1). The Applicants relied, apparently, on exhibit 1, above, and waited for new proper appointments. Eventually Law 8/64 was enacted and they were given the subjudice appointments against which they now complain. The generic submission, made as aforestated, by counsel for Applicants against the validity of all three subjudice acts, amounts really to the contention that taking into account the 1961 temporary appointments—which admittedly were not the products of due consideration of the merits of each case, and, therefore, did not correctly fit the Applicants, who were all persons with past service and not mere first entrants—has led to the invalidity of the appointments given to the Applicants in
2. It is common ground in these proceedings that the 1964 permanent appointments were given to the Applicants by virtue of section 35

(1)of Law 8/64, which provided that Secondary Education schools' officials, found in service on the enactment of such Law, were to be given new appointments in the light of the previous post, the past salary, the qualifications, and the years and record of service of each one; such appointments 353 1967 May 27 ANTONIOS KYRIAKOU A N D OTHERS V. GREEK COMMUNAL CHAMBER A N D ANOTHER 1967 May 27 ANTOMOS K\ R1AKOU A N D OTHERS v. GREEK COMMUNAL CHAMBER A N D ANOTHER were to be in respect of organic posts created by Law 8/64 It follows, therefore, that the temporary 1961 appointments of the Applicants were taken into account in making the sub judice 1964 appointments It is quite correct that the said 1961 appointments were not the outcome ot due consideration of the individual merits of each appointee—especially as qualifications and past service were not duly taken into account in making them But, along with the previous post and past salary, section 35

(1)of Law 8/64 ha« laid down, as criteria for the new appoint­ ments under its provisions, the qualifications and the years and record of service οΐ those to be appointed, so. the factors which were not duly considered in 1961 weie brought fully into the pictuic in 1964. As a lcsult, it was ensured that the new appointments would be made on the basis of the totality of relevant considerations, thus curing any errors that might have occurred in 1961 Moreover, once section 35

(1)of Law 8/64 prescribed in ex­ press terms that the previous posts and past salaries of the Applicants had to be taken into account no question could arise of the appropriate organ eiring in taking them intoaccount when deciding o^ the new appointments challenged by these recourses I cannot, theicfoie, hold that the taking into account of the 1961 temporaly appointments of the Applicants has in any way vilified the exercise of the ickvant powcis under sec­ tion 35

(1)>f Law 8/64 The present Case1* are definitely distinguishable from Chn­ stodoulou and Ilie G/eek Communal Chambet (icportcd in this Part at p. 50 anW)where the Court held that it was wrong to treat as "the appointment la^t offered" to the Applicant in that case—for the puiposes of section 42(

1. a)of the Masters of Communal Secondary Schools Law, lQ64 (Greek Communal Law 10/63)—a previous appointment whi'.h had been referred back for reconsideration, by the Complaints Committee in the Greek Education Office before theenactmentof the iclcvant legislation. Law 10/63; it was found in that case, mtei alia that the said appointment had lost its finality and could not be relied upon for the purposes of section 42(
2. a)ot Law 10/63, which, unlike section 35

(1)of Law 8/64, did not provide for new appointments to new organic posts after new consideration 354 of all relevant factors, but only preserved the status quo flowing from "the appointment last offered" before its enactment. For the above reasons the Applicants fail on the general issue, which they have raised as against the validity of the sub judice decisions, and these recourses will have now to proceed to hearing on the remaining issues. Order in terms. 355 1967 May 27 ANTONIOS KYRIAKOU A N D OTHERS v. GREEK COMMUNAL CHAMBER A N D ANOTHER