← Κύπρος

clr/1979/1979_3_56.pdf

(1979)1979 January 27 [MALACHTOS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION SOFOCLES MICHAELOUDES AND ANOTHER, Applicants, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
  1. THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE,
  2. THE MINISTRY O F EDUCATION, Respondents. (Cases Nos. 530/73 and 539/73). Educational Officers (Teaching Personnel) (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Relevant Matters) Regulations, 1972— Regulations 26, 28, and 29 ultra viressection 35
(2)of the Public Educational Service Law, 1969 (Law 10/69). Educational Officers—Promotions—Post of Assistant Headmaster 5 Secondary Education—Preparation of list of those eligible for promotion and making of promotions out of candidates included in the list—Under regulations 26, 28 and 29 of the Educational Officers (Teaching Personnel) (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Relevant Matters) Regulations, 1972— 10 Which are ultra vires section 35
(2)of the Public Educational Service Law, 1969 (Law 10/69)—Promotions annulled, Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Composite administrative act—Taken on the basis of a continuing process resulting in a final administrative action—Invalidity of part of 15 a composite administrative action leads to the invalidity of the said action as a whole. Both applicants were candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster secondary education schools. The respondent Educational Service Committee, at its meeting* of the 30th August, 1973, acting under regulations 26**, 28** and 29** of the Educational Officers (Teaching Personnel) * See the relevant minutes at pp. 60-61 post. ** Regulations 26, 28 and 29 are quoted at pp. 64-70 post. 56 20 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Michaeloudes& Another v. Republic (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Relevant Matters) Regulations, 1972prepared the lists of those eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster Secondary Education under class A or B. Though both applicants were eligibleforpromotionto the saidpost, according to the relevant scheme ofservice*, they werenot included either inclassAorB; and as from thepreparation of the lists all candidates eligible for promotion, including the applicants, were excluded andthe selection for promotion wasto be made outof the candidates included inthe said lists. Atitsmeeting** ofthefollowing day the Committee decided to appoint theinterested parties to the abovepost after taking into consideration, inter alia, theposition of the candidates inthe prepared lists of those eligible for pro­ motion. Hence thepresent recourses. Counsel for applicants contended, interalia,that regulations 26, 28 and 29 (supra), by virtue of which the said lists A and Β were prepared andthepromotions complained of were eventually made, areultra vires thePublic Educational Service Law, 1969 (Law 10/69), section 35
(2)of which provides that the claims of Educational Officers to promotion shall be con­ sidered onthebasis of merit, qualifications and seniority.. Held,
(1)that as (a)under regulations 26(l)(b) and 26
(2)(a) and (b)ofthe said Regulations the evaluation of the educational officers eligible for promotion is made onwrong criteria and/or irrelevant factors (see p.70post); that as regulation 28
(4)gives to theexecutive authority a say on promotions of educational officers whereas such power is notexistent in Law 10/69 (see p. 71 post); andthat as under regulations 29
(1)and29
(3)educational officers are promoted by analogy of 80% from class A and 20% from class Βandaccording to their specialization, criteria which arewrong and arbitrary andnotin accordance with theschemes of service andtheprovisions of Law 10/69, (see Konnaris andAnotherv. Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 377at p.389) regulations 26, 28, and 29 are ultra vires section 35
(2)of the Public Educational Service Law, 1969 (Law 10/69).
(2)That as in thecase in hand the respondent Committee Quoted at p, 60 post. See the relevant minutes at p. 61 post. 57 Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic
(1979)prepared thelist of those eligible for promotion andmadethe promotions complained of in accordance with regulations 26, 28 and29 which areultra vires section 35
(2)of Law 10/69,its decision to promote theinterested parties should be declared null andvoid. 5 Sub judice decision annulled. Per curiam: That thesubjudicedecision wasreached in two stages ((a) preparation of list and (b)promotions out ofthe candidates included inthe lists); that one of the characteristics of an administrative actis that it should bea unilateral autho- 10 ritative pronouncement; that this requirement does notex­ clude composite administrative actions taken onthebasis ofa continuing process resulting in a final administrative action; that, however, the invalidity of part of a composite administra­ tive action, leads tothe invalidity of the said action asa whole, 15 because the component parts of the action,intheir nature, are not separate and independentofeach other (see HadjiGeorghiou v. Republic
(1974)3 C.LR.436 a' p.445); and that even if itis assumed that the said decision waswrong atany oneofthe two stages, then again it should bedeclared null andvoid since the 20 two stagesinwhichitwas taken arenotseparate and independent of each other. Cases referred to: Konnaris andAnother v. The Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 377at p. 389; HadjiGeorghiou v. TheRepublic
(1974)3 C.L.R.
  1. 25 Recourses. Recourses against the refusal and/or omission of the re­ spondents to place applicants on the lists of those eligible for promotion under class Ά ' or 'B' and against the decision of 30 the respondents to promote the interested parties to the post of Assistant Headmaster, secondary education, in preference and instead of the applicants. A. Markides, for the applicants. A. S. Angelides, for therespondents. 35 Cur. adv. vult. MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. In these two recourses, which were heard together as they attack the same administrative act,the two applicants claim: 58 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Michaeloudes & Another τ. Republic Malacbtos J. A. A declaration of the Court that the refusal and/or omission of the Committee of Educational Service to include them in the lists of those eligible for promotion in class A and/or Β to the post of Assistant Headmaster, which lists were published on 1st September, 1973,and/ortheinclusion in those lists of theinterested parties instead of the applicants, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. B. A declaration of the Court that the refusal and/or omission of the respondent Committee to promote the applicants to the post of Assistant Headmaster and/or the promotion of the interested parties, which was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of the 28th September, 1973, at page 820, instead of the applicants, is null and voidand of no effect what­ soever. C. A declaration of the Court that the decision and/or act of the respondent Committee by which the lists of those eligible for promotion under Class A or B, were prepared and/or published for the post of Assis­ tant Headmaster, which lists were published and/or announced on 1st September, 1973, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever, and D. A declaration of the Court that the decision and/or act of the respondent Committeeto promote secondary school teachers to the post of Assistant Headmaster published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of the 28th September, 1973, at page 820, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. In Recourse No. 530/73 the interested parties are: I. Christodoulos Klcopa,
  2. Andreas Malekou and
  3. Andreas Manoli whereas in Recourse No. 539/73 where Evdokia Evangelidou is the applicant, the interested parties are:
  4. Andreas Panayi,
  5. Aris Georghiou,
  6. Andreas Malekou,
  7. Alexandra Papanastassiou and
  8. EUadios Chandriotis. According to the relevant schemes of service the post of Assistant Headmaster, secondary education, is a promotion post and the required qualifications are: 59 Mahcfatos J. Michaeloudes & Another •. Republic
(1979)1. At least three years service on scale B12 in the post of Schoolmaster or tutor or service of any duration to the post of Technologist on scale Β13. 2. At least successful service on the basis of the last two confidential reports. 5 3. Good knowledge of one of the prevailing European languages. 4. Post graduate studies abroad or additional diploma,pre­ ferably in pedagogics or subjects concerning admini­ stration of schools, is considered as an additional qua- 10 lification. The applicant in Recourse 530/73 was first appointed as a philologist in 1959 and on 31/8/69 was placed on scale BI2. In thelast two confidential reports the applicant received 20 1/2 and 21 1/2 marks, respectively, out of a total of 25. 15 The applicant in Recourse No. 539/73 was first appointed as a philologist in 1959 and in 1968 was placed on scale B12. In thelast two confidential reports this applicantreceived 20 1/2 and 22 marks respectively, out of a total of 25. It is not in dispute that both the applicants and the interested 20 parties were eligible for promotion according to the schemes of service. The relevant minutes of the respondent Committee of the 30th August, 1973, exhibit 9,when the lists of promotees were prepared, are as follows: 25 "The Committee of Educational Service having taken into consideration, (
  1. a)the required qualifications under the Public Educational Service Law 1969 (Law 10/1969), the Educational Officers Regulations 1972 and the 30 required qualifications by the schemes of service, (
  2. b)the merits, qualifications and seniority of the candidates as they reflect from all the elements of service and the personal files and confidential reports, as well as the recommendations of the 35 60 3 C.L.R. 5 Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic Malachtos J. persons in authority, on the basis of the regulations (regulation 28) prescribed procedure as to the preparation of the lists of promotees, and on the basis of all the elements of service and other relevant elements, and the personal opinion of the Committee, decides as follows:Prepares the lists of promotees to the attached supplement for the post of Headmasters A, Headmasters and Assistant Headmasters of Schools of Secondary Education". 10 In the said lists the names of the applicants are not included either in class A or B. At the meeting of the respondent Committee of the 31/8/73, it was decided to promote the interested parties to the post of 15 Assistant Headmaster as from 1/9/73. The relevant minutes of the respondent Committee, exhibit 10, read as follows:"Further to its decision of the 30/8/73 the Committee took into consideration, 20 (
  3. a)the position of the candidates in the prepared lists of promotes, (
  4. b)the existing vacincies, (
  5. c)the educational needs as they were exposed by the Head of Departments concerned, and 25 (
  6. d)the provisions of the Educational Officers Regulations 1972 in connection with promotions from the lists, decides as follows: 1. 2. 3. 30 To the following secondary school teachers it offers promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster as from 1/9/1973 and are posted as follows:" The names of the interested parties appear, among others, and their postings follow. 61 Malachtos J. Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic
(1979)The applications arebased as stated therein, onthe following legal grounds:All and/or each one of the above administrative decisions, acts or omissions are null andvoid andof no legal effect what­ soever for thefollowing reasons:- 5 1. They are illegal as the above mentioned lists of the persons eligible for promotion under class A or Β on the basis of which the promotions were made and were published on 28th September, 1973, and announced by the Committee of Educational Service on 10 1st September, 1973, whereas under regulation 28
(5)of the Educational Officers (Teaching Personnel) (Ap­ pointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Re­ levant Matters) Regulations of 1972ought to have been published in February,
  1. 15
  2. They are illegal and/or were taken inexcess and/or abuse of power particularly:(a) since according to section 35
(2)of Law 10/1969the claims of educational officers to promotion shall be considered on thebasis of merit, qualifications and 20 seniority and since in the case of the applicants all the requirements of section 35
(1)of the Law, were satisfied, thesaid Committeedidnot consider and/or did not take into account themerits, qualifications and seniority of the applicants: 25 (b) contrary to regulation 28
(2)of the Regulations although the Committee did not take any decision to theeffect that the applicants were noteligible for promotion, failed to evaluate them as eligible for promotion under class A or Β although they did 30 not have any discretion in this matter. 3. They areillegal and/or were taken in excess and/or abuse of power as effected by virtue of the above Regulations, which arevoid as ultra vires theLaw,particularly, since they are: (
  1. a)practically inapplicable and/or theCommittee ought not to apply them as notin force in theyear 1973 and this because: 62 35 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic Malachtos J. (
  2. a)Regulation 26 of the Regulations imposes and/or presupposes the existence of confidential reports for each onewho has got the relevant qualifications for whom the schemes of service for the purpose of grading him for certain qualifications in a particular way, whereas by the prepared reports before the coming into force of the regulations were taken into account other qualifications whichwere not in accordance with regulation 26 and so the said regulation could not be applied by the Committee; (
  3. b)Regulation 29isabsurd and/or iscontrary to section 35
(2)of Law 10/1969 and Article 28 of the Constitution. 15 20 25 4. The promotions attacked by the present recourse are illegaland/or weremadeinexcessand/or abuse ofpower as they were not made in accordance with section 35
(2)of Law 10/1969but were made on the basis of arbitrary and/or unlawful policy of the Committee under which whenpromotionsaretakingplacetothepostofAssistant Headmaster they are made so as to promote a specified number of teachers of Philology, Mathematics, Physics, Theology and others. 5. The said decisions were taken in abuse of power and/or arecontrary to the Gereral Principles of Administrative Law since:(
  1. a)they are not reasoned and/or duly reasoned and/or wrongly reasoned and/or (
  2. b)facts were taken into account which ought not to have been taken and/or 30 (
  3. c)no facts were taken into account which ought to have been taken, and/or (
  4. d)the said Committee misconceived the facts of the case, and 35 (
  5. e)the said Committee did not carry out a proper enquiry before theissueofthedecisionscomplained of. One of the arguments of counsel for applicant put forward 63 Malacbtos J. Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic
(1979)in support of his case is that regulations 26, 28 and 29 of the Educational Officers (Teaching Personnel) (Appointments, Post­ ings, Transfers, Promotions and Relevant Matters) Regulations 1972, by virtue of which the lists of promotees to the post of Assistant Headmaster under Class A and Β were prepared and 5 the promotions complained of were eventually made, are ultra vires the Public Educational Service Law of 1969 (Law 10/69) section 35
(2)which provides that the claims of Educational Officers to promotion shall be considered on the basis of merit, qualifications and seniority. 10 Regulations 26, 28 and 29 read as follows: " 26.—
(1)Oi πληρούντες τα έν τοις Σχεδίοις Υπηρεσίας καθοριζόμενα προσόντα (α) προάγονται κατ' αρχαιότητα προκειμένου περί συνδεδυασμένων θέσεων. 15 (β) προκειμένου περί μή συνδεδυασμένων θέσεων, κρί­ νονται ως προάϋιμοι,Ά* ή προάίιμοι 'Β* λαμβανο­ μένης 0π' όψιν ως κατωτέρω ορίζεται της αξιολογή­ σεως εϊς τάς έμπιστευτικάς εκθέσεις δια τα ακόλουθα ουσιαστικά προσόντα: 20 (ί) Τ Ηθος και χαράκτηρ, κοινωνική παράστασις και συμπεριφορά εντός και έκτος της υπηρεσίας. (ϋ) Επιστημονική κατάρτισις καΐ πνευματικά προ­ σόντα. (iii) Παιδαγωγική κατάρτισις και διδακτική ίκα- 25 νότης. (ϊν) Διοικητική δεκάτης, δραστηριότης και ηγετικά προσόντα. (ν) Υπηρεσιακή ευσυνειδησία.
(2)-(α) Προάϋιμοι Ά* εις θέσιν Βοηθοΰ Διευθυντού κρί- 30 νονται οί έχοντες είς τάς δύο τελευταίας εντός της τΕλευταίας πενταετίας έμπιστευτικάς εκθέσεις έκ των αναφερομένων έν τη παραγράφω
(1)πέντε προσόντων τό Οπό (
  1. i)είς βαθμόν έ£αίρετον, τά ύπό (
  2. iv)και (ν) είς βαθμόν τουλάχιστον λίαν καλόν και τά Οπό (ϋ) και (iii) εις βαθμόν τουλάχιστον καλόν. -}5 64 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic Malachtos J. (β) ΠροάΕιμοι 'Β' είς θέσιν Βοηθού Διευθυντού κρίνονται οί έχοντες είςτάςδύοτελευταίας εντός της τελευταίας πεντα­ ετίας εμπιστευτικός εκθέσεις έκτωναναφερομένων έντη παρα­ γράφω
(1)πέντε προσόντων τ ό υπό(i) είς βαθμόν έϋαίρετον, τό ύ π ό (ιν)είς βαθμόν τουλάχιστον λίαν καλόν, τ ά δέ υπό­ λοιπα τρία εις βαθμόν τουλάχιστον καλόν. ^
(3)-(α) Προάξιμοι Ά* είς θέσιν Διευθυντού Σχολείων κρί­ νονται οί έχοντες είςτάςδύοτελευταίας εντός της τελευταίας πενταετίας εμπιστευτικός εκθέσεις έκ τών αναφερομένων έν τη παραγράφω
(1)πέντε προσόντων τ ά τρία, έν οΐς απαραιτή­ τως τ ά ύπό(
  1. i)καί(
  2. iv)τούτων, είς βαθμόν έ^αίρετον, τ ά 5έ άλλα δύοείς βαθμόν τουλάχιστον λίαν καλόν. (β) ΠροάΕιμοι Έ ' ειςθέσιν Διευθυντού Σχολείων κρίνονται οί έχοντες εϊςτάςδύοτελευταίας εντός της τελευταίας πενταετίας εμπιστευτικός εκθέσεις έκτώναναφερομένων έντη παρα­ γράφω
(1)πέντε προσόντων τ ά τρία ένοΐς απαραιτήτωςτ ά τ ά Οπό (
  1. i)και(
  2. iv)τούτων, είς βαθμόν έ£αίρετον, τ ά δέ άλλα δύο είς βαθμόν τουλάχιστον καλόν.
(4)Διά προαγωγήν είς ανωτέρας των ώς άνωάναφερομένων θέσεων, οί εκπαιδευτικοί λειτουργοί δέν αξιολογούνται ως προάΕιμοι Ά* και προάΕιμοι 'Β'.· 28.—
(1)Προκειμένου περί συνδεδυασμένων Θέσεων δέν υπάρχει οίοσδήποτε περιορισμός είς τον αριθμόν τών διά προαγωγήν κρινόμενων ούτε καί είναι ανάγκη νά συντάσσωνται κατάλογοι προαίίμων.
(2)Διάπροαγωγήν είς μή συνδεδυασμένας θέσεις ή 'Επι­ τροπή λαμβάνουσα υ π ' όψιν τ άπροσόντα τών εκπαιδευτικών λειτουργών οί όποιοι δικαιούνται νά είναι υποψήφιοι διά προαγωγήν καιτ ά τιθέμενα είςτήν διάθεσίν της υπηρεσιακά και άλλα σχετικά στοιχεία αυτών, ώς και τήν προσωπικήν άντίληψιν των μελών αύτης —όπου υπάρχει τοιαύτη —δε­ όντως αίτιολογουμένην, κρίνει εκαστον τούτων καί χαρακτη­ ρίζει αυτόν ώς προά£ιμον ή μή προκειμένου δέπερί τώνυπο­ ψηφίων διά προαγωγήν εις τάς έν τ ω Κανονισμω 29άναφερομένας θέσεις αξιολογεί αυτόν ώς προάΐιμον *Α' ή προά£ιμον "Β* συμφώνως προς τάςδιατάζεις τοΰ Κανονισμού 26.
(3)'Εντός τού μηνός Ιανουαρίου ή 'Επιτροπή συντάσσει διά τάςμή συνδεδυασμένας θέσεις Προαγωγής πίνακας προ65 Malachtos J. Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic
(1979)αΕίμων κατά τ ά ανωτέρω, εϊς εκαστον δέ τοιούτον πίνακα αναγράφεται αριθμός υποψηφίων μέχρι τού τετραπλασίου τοϋ αριθμού τών προς πλήρωσιν κενών θέσεων έκ τών υπο­ ψηφίων τών δυναμένων νάπροάγωνται, τηρουμένων καί τών διατάΕεων τού Κανονισμού 29, εϊς τάς τοιαύτας κενάς θέσεις. 5
(4)Οί κατά τ ά ανωτέρω συντασσόμενοι πίνακες τίθενται ενώπιον της αρμοδίας αρχής, ήτις δύναται νά ύποβάλλη έπ* αυτών τάς εϊσηγήσεις της προς τήν Έπιτροπήν.
(5)Οί τελικοί πίνακες προστίμων αναρτώνται εϊςτ ά Γρα­ φεία της "Επιτροπής εντός τού Φεβρουαρίου καϊ ισχυουσι μέχρι τού τέλους τοΰ ημερολογιακού έτους. 29.—
(1)Τηρουμένων τώνδιατάξεων τούπαρόντος Μέρους, εις τάς ακολούθους Θέσεις Προαγωγής ή π ρ ο α γ ω γ ή διενερ­ γείται έκ τών οίκείων πινάκων προαΕίμων βάσει της κάτωθι οριζόμενης αναλογίας: 'Αναλογία έκτούπίνακος προαΕίμων •Α' Έ' Βοηθός Διευθυντής Σχολείων Στοιχειώδους 'Εκπαιδεύσεως 880% 0% 2 020% % Διευθυντής Σχολείων Στοιχειώδους 'Εκπαιδεύσεως 90% 10% Βοηθός Διευθυντής Σχολείων Μέσης "Εκπαιδεύσεως 80% 20% Διευθυντής Σχολείων Μέσης Εκπαιδεύσεως 90% 10% 10 [5 20 25
(2)Είς τάς λοιπάς μή συνδεδυασμένας θέσεις Προαγωγής τού διδακτικού προσωπικού ή π ρ ο α γ ω γ ή διενεργείται έκ τών οικείων πινάκων προστίμων Ά ' .
(3)Διά τήν θέσιν Βοηθού Διευθυντού Σχολείων Μέσης 30 'Εκπαιδεύσεως αί προαγωγαί κατανέμονται κατά είδικότητας βάσει της κατά ειδικότητα συνθέσεως τούδιδακτικού προσω­ πικού τών ειδικοτήτων έ£ ών δύνανται νά έπιλέγωνται οί προαγόμενοι είς τήν είρημένην Θέσιν (ώς οί φιλόλογοι, μαθη­ ματικοί, καθηγηται άλλων θεωρητικών μαθημάτων, τεχνολό- 35 γοι καϊ έκπαιδευταί): Νοείται ότιή διάταΕις αύτη Θάέχηέφαρμογήν είςπ ρ ο α γ ω 66 3 C.L.R. Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic Malachtos J. γάς διενεργούμενος πράς πλήρωσιν κενών θέσεων μετά τήν ήμερομηνίαν ένάρΕεως της Ισχύος τών παρόντωνΚανονισμών. 5 10
(4)Κατά τάς έκ των πινάκων προαΕίμων διενεργούμενος προαγωγός οί εγγεγραμμένοι είς τόν πίνακα τών προαΕίμων Ά* προάγονται οπωσδήποτε πρό τών νεωτέρων των τού πίνακος των προαΕίμων 'Β*.
(5)Έάνό αριθμόςτων περιλαμβανομένων είς τους πίνακας τών προαΕίμων Ά* ήθελεν άποδειχθη ανεπαρκής νά καλύψη τάς άνάγκας προς πλήρωσιν τών οίκείων κενών θέσεων μέχρι της λήΕεως της έν παραγράφω
(5)τοΰ Κανονισμού 28 καθο­ ριζομένης χρονικήςπεριόδου, συντάσσεται ύπότης 'Επιτροπής νέος συμπληρωματικός πίναΕ." ("26
(1)Those possessing the qualifications specified by the schemes of service- 15 20 (
  1. a)are promoted according to seniority in the case of posts on the combined establishment; (
  2. b)in the case of posts which are not on the combined establishment they are considered as promotees *A' or promotees ' β 1 having regard to the rating in the confidential reports for the following substan­ tive qualifications as hereunder specified: (
  3. i)Ethos and character, social standing and behaviour within and outside the service. 25 (
  4. ii)Scientific training and intellectual .qualifications. (iii) Paedagogic training and teaching ability. (
  5. iv)Administrative ability, activity and leader­ ship. (
  6. v)Service conscientiousness. 3Q 35 2(a)As promotees\ 4 ' to thepost of AssistantHeadmaster are considered those who, in the last two confidential re­ ports of the last five years have, in respect of the 5 items referred to in paragraph
(1), been rated as excellent in item (
  1. i)as at least very good in items (
  2. iv)and (
  3. v)and as at least good in items (
  4. ii)and (iii). 67 Malacbtos J. Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic
(1979)(b) As promotees *B' to the post of Assistant Head­ master areconsidered those who inthe last two confidential reports of the last five years have, in respect of the 5 items referred to in paragraph
(1), been rated as excellent in item (
  1. i)as at least very good in item (
  2. iv)and as at least 5 good in the remaining three items.
(3)(a) As promotees Ά ' to thepost of Headmaster are considered those who in the last two confidential reports of the last five years have, in respect of the 5items referred to in paragraph
(1),been rated in 3 items, which should 10 indispensably include items (i)and (iv), as excellent and in the remaining 2 items as at least very good. (b) As promotees *B' to the post of Headmaster are considered those who in the last two confidential reports of the last five years have, in respect of the 5items referred 15 to in paragraph
(1), been rated in 3 items, which should indispensably include items (i)and(iv), as excellent and in the remaining 2 items as at least good.
(4)For promotion toposts higher than the above posts, educational officers are not evaluated as promotees Ά ' or 20 promotees*B*. 28
(1)With regard toposts on the combined establish­ ment there is no limit on the number of those considered for promotion andthere is no need for thepreparation of lists of promotees.
(2)Forpromotion toposts which arenoton the com­ bined establishment the Committee after taking into con­ sideration the qualifications of educational officers who are eligible to be considered as candidates for promotion and the service and other relevant material placed before 30 it as well as the personal impression of its members— where such exists—duly reasoned, considers each one of them and describes himas promotee or not,but with re­ gard to candidates for promotion to theposts referred to in regulation 29 evaluates each candidate as promotee Ά ' 35 or promotee 'B' in accordance with the provisions of regulation 26.
(3)During the month of January the Committeepre68 25 3 C.L.R. 5 Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic Malachtos J. pares, in respect of promotion posts which are not on the combined establishment, lists of promotees as above and each such list includes a number of candidates by four timesbigger than the number ofvacant posts, from amongst thecandidateswhoareeligiblefor promotion to such vacant posts subject also to the provisions of regulation 29.
(4)The lists prepared as above are submitted to the appropriate authority which may submit suggestions on them to the Committee. 10 15 20 25 30 35
(5)The final lists of promotees are exhibited in the office of the Committee during February and they remain in force until the end of the calendar year. 29
(1)· Subject to the provisions of this Part, promotion to the following promotion posts is effected from the relevant lists of promotees in accordance with the undermentioned analogy: Analogy from the list of promotees W 'B' Assistant Headmaster Schools of Elementary Education 80% 20% Headmaster Schools of Elementary Education 90% 10% Assistant Headmaster Schools of Secondary Education 80% 20% Headmaster Schools of Secondary Education 90% 10%
(2)In the other promotion posts of the teaching staff, which are not on the combined establishment, the promotion is effected from the relevant list of promotees *A\
(3)For the post of Assistant Headmaster, Schools of Secondary Education, promotions are allocated according to specialization, on the basis of the according to specialization composition of the teaching staff of the specializations out of which those to be promoted to the said post may be chosen (such as philologists, mathematicians, 69 Malachtos J. Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic
(1979)masters of other theoretical subjects, technologists and instructors): Provided that this provision will apply to promotions effected for the filling of vacant posts after the date of the coming into force of the present Regulations. 5
(4)In effecting promotions from the lists of promotees, officers registered in the list of promotees Ά* are in any case promoted in priority to their juniors on the list of promotees *B'.
(5)If the number included in the lists of promotees *A' 10 proves insufficient to cover the needs for filling the relevant vacant posts until the expiration of the time limit pres­ cribed by paragraph 5 of regulation 28 a new supplemen­ tary list is prepared by the Committee."). I must say from the outset that from a mere glance at the 15 said regulations it becomes obvious that they are ultra vires section 35
(2)of the Law for the following main reasons: Under regulation 26
(1)(b) and 26
(2)(
  1. a)and (
  2. b)the evalua­ tion of the educational officers eligible for promotion is made on wrong criteria and/or irrelevant factors. A striking example 20 is that an educational officer who has the qualifications under the schemes of service to be promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster, with which we are concerned in the present re­ course, and has been graded in qualification (
  3. i)of regulation 26(I)(
  4. b)as "very good" instead of "excellent" is excluded from 25 being considered as a candidate as he cannot be included under the provisions of regulation 26
(2)(
  1. a)and (
  2. b)either in class A or Β of the list of promotees although he may be graded in the other four qualifications as "excellent". Also, there is nothing in regulation 26 indicating that in preparing class A or Β of 30 the list of promotees the seniority or the additional qualifications such as postgraduate studies abroad or additional diploma, of the educational officers are taken into account. Furthermore, educational officers who are included in class Β of the list of promotees may be promoted instead of many educational 35 officers included in class A who have obviously striking superio­ rity over them as regards the criteria of merit and qualifications; and this irrespective of the fact that there is nothing in.the law justifying the classification of the promotees into A and B. It 70 4 3 C.L.R. Michaeloudes & Another v. Republic Malachtos J. follows from the above that the list of promotees prepared under regulation 28
(2)since the evaluation of educational officers is made under regulation 26, is based on wrong criteria as relevant factors are not taken into account. 5 Regulation 28
(4)provides that the prepared lists are placed before the appropriate authority, which may submit to the Committee its suggestions on them. According to section 2 of Law 10/69 "Appropriate Authority" means the Minister of Education acting usually through the Director-General of the 10 Ministry. This means that regulation 28
(4)gives to the exe­ cutive authority a say on promotions of educational officers whereas such power is not existent in Law 10/69. 15 20 25 As regards regulation 29
(1)and 29
(3), where the educational officers are promoted by analogy of 80% from class A and 20% from class Β and according to their specialization, I must say that these are wrong and arbitrary criteria which are not in accordance with the schemes of service and the provisions of the law. As it has been stated by this Court in the case of Konnaris and Another v. The Republic
(1974)3 C.L.R. 377 at page 389 "Specialization is a material factor only in cases of postings or transfers of educational officers but never in cases of pro­ motions". In the present case the respondent Committee in compliance with regulations 26, 28 and 29 reached the decision complained of in two stages. At the first stage on 30/8/73 the lists of promotees and the classification of the candidates into A and Β were prepared. As from that date all other candidates eligible for promotion, 30 including the two applicants, were excluded and the selection for promotion was to be made out of the candidates included in the relevant lists. At the second stage on 31/8/73 the interested parties were promoted. 35 One of the characteristics of an administrative act is that it should be a unilateral authoritative pronouncemsnt. This re­ quirement, however, does not exclude composite administrative 71 Malachtos J. Michaeloudes &Another v. Republic
(1979)actions taken on the basis of a continuing process resulting in a final administrative action. However, the invalidity of part of a composite administrative action, leads to the invalidity of the said action as a whole, because the component parts of the action, in their nature, are not separate and independent of each other. 5 The above principles were followed by this Court in the case of Savvas HadjiGeorghiou v. The Republic of Cyprus through the Educational Service Committee
(1974)3 C.L.R. 436 at page 445. 10 In the case in hand the respondent Committee prepared the lists of promotees and made the promotions complained of in accordance with regulations 26, 28 and 29 which, as stated earlier in this judgment, are ultra vires the Public Educational Service Law of 1969 section 35
(2)and, therefore, the decision 15 of the respondent Committee to promote the interested parties should be declared null and void. Even if we assume that the said decision was wrong at any one of the two stages, then again, on the principle of HadjiGeorghiou case, supra, should be declared null and voidsince the two stages in which the said 20 decision was taken are not separate and independent of each other. In view of my above decision I consider it unnecessary to pronounce on the other points raised in these recourses. In the result, both recourses succeed and the decision of the 25 respondent Committee to promote the interested parties is declared null and void. The respondent to pay £25.- against the costs of each applicant. Subjudice decision annulled. 30 Orderfor costs as above. 72

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.