← Κύπρος

clr/1981/1981_3_540.pdf

(1981)1981 December 5 [MALACHTOS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION IOANNIS VRYONIDES, Applicant, 1. THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE 2. THE GRADING COMMITTEE OF THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, Respondents. (Case No. 28/75). Practice—Recourse for annulment—Amendment of claim for relief so as to challenge validity of decision taken after the sub judice decision and after fling of the recourse—Not possible even with consent of counsel for the respondents. Public Officers—Qualifications-Evaluation—All relevant facts taken into consideration—No misconception of fact—Relevant decision a duly reasoned one. 5 The applicant, a secondary education schoolmaster on scale B6, applied to the respondent Committee for promotion on scale BIO. Amongst the qualifications required by the relevant 10 scheme of service was "a degree/title of another University in the relevant language and literature or equivalent qualification". His application for promotion was supported by the following qualifications which in the submission of applicant satisfied the aforequoted requirement of the scheme of service: 15 (
  1. a)A.C.P. diploma in education; (
  2. b)University of London Institute of Education; (
  3. c)Diploma in the teaching of English as a foreign language; (
  4. d)Cambridge certificate of Proficiency in English; 540 20 3 C.L.R. Vryonides ν. Republic (
  5. e)Final Diploma of the Institute of Linguists; (
  6. f)Membership of the Institute of Linguists (MIL). 5 10 15 20 The respondent Committee decided to reject applicant's claim for promotion on the ground that his qualifications did not satisfy the above requirement of the scheme of service; and informed applicant accordingly by letter* dated 28.2.1975 in which it was stated, inter alia,that the Committee having considered the application and having taken into consideration all the elements and documents before it as well as the views of the Evaluation Committeedecided that applicant's qualifica­ tions cannotbe considered as equivalent to a University Degree/ title. As against the above decision applicant filed the above recourse. After the filing of this recourse the applicant submitted new facts in support of his allegation that his qualifica­ tions were equivalent to a University degree; the respondent Committee examined applicant's claim in the light of those facts and rejected it on the 17th January, 1976. On March 1976 applicant was granted, with the consent of counsel for the respondent, an amendment of his claim in this recourse by virtue of which be could attack, also, thelatter decision of January 17, 1976, by means of this recourse. Counsel for the applicant contended: 25 30 (
  7. a)That the respondent Committee confined themselves to the examination of only the "Membership of the Institute of Linguists (MIL)" title and did not examine all the qualifications of the applicant collectively; and that this omission, amounted to misconception of facts which, by itself, alone, rendered the decision complained of null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever; (
  8. b)that, irrespective of the above omission, respondents wrongly valuated the MIL title as not equivalent to a university degree; 35 (
  9. c)That the decision of the respondent committee was not duly reasoned. The letter is quoted in full at pp. 549-552 post. 541
(1981)Vryonides v. Republic Held,
(1)that the application for amendment was wrongly granted, even with the consent of counsel of the respondent Committee; that in no case the decision of the respondent Committee of 17.1.1976 whether being an executory one or confirmatory of the decision of 28.2.1975 complained of in the present recourse, could beembodied in thepresent recourse; and that, therefore, this Court will not pronounce on the submissions and arguments of counsel made on facts which took placeafter the28thFebruary, 1975whenthedecisioncomplained of in the present recourse was issued. 5 10
(2)That it isclearfrom therelevant minutes ofthe respondent Committee and their letter to theapplicant dated 28.2.1975, as well as the relevant correspondence contained in the personal file of the applicant, that all thequalifications of the applicant, including the MIL title, were carefully considered by the 15 respondent Committee before issuing the decision complained of; that in reachingthisdecisiontheytookintoconsiderationall the relevant facts, including the views of the Evaluation Committee; and that, therefore, it cannot be said that there is misconception of facts on their part. 20
(3)That as regards the reasoning of their decision this isalso contained in their letter to the applicant dated 28.2.1975 where it is clearly stated that he did not possess the required qualificationsspecified in the relevant schemes of service for promotion on scale BIO; accordingly this recourse should fail. 25 Application dismissed. Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to emplace applicant, a teacher of secondary education, on scale B. 10. L. Papaphilippou, for the applicant. 30 A. S. Angelides, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. The applicant in this recourse served as a teacher in the elementary education as from 1951 to the 6th October, 1969, when he was seconded 35 to the secondary education. Asfrom 1.1.1970hewas appointed on probation on scale B3 as a teacher of English in secondary 542 3 C.L.R. Vryonides v. Republic Matachtos J. education schools. At the time of his appointment on scale B3 the applicant had the following qualifications: (
  1. a)adiplomaofthe MorphouTeachers'TrainingCollege; (
  2. b)a University of London Institute of Education; 5 (
  3. c)a diploma in the teaching of English as a foieign language. Onthe 30th June, 1970,it wasdecided to abridge his piobationary period and to confiim his appointment on scale B3 as from 1.1.1970. 10 On the 12thJanuary, 1971, the applicant applied for promotion to a higher,scale on the basis of his years of service, his qualifications and grading. The respondent by its decision dated 18th January, 1971, promoted the applicant to scale B6 as from 1.2.1971 and the applicant accepted this promotion 15 by letter dated 21.1.1971. Onthe 6th March, 1972,the applicant applied for promotion to scale BIO on the strength of his 20 years service success in the examinations for the Cambridge Certificate Proficiency in English, which examinations took place in Cyprus. 20 On the 27th March, 1972, the evaluation committee decided thattheCertificate referred tointheapplication oftheapplicant. doesnot covereither formally or substantially the qualifications of the schemes of service for promotion from scale B6to scale B10asitdoesnot amount topostgraduate coursefor theperiod 25 of one year in a special overseas college. On the 1st May, 1972, the respondents decided that they couldnot respondto theapplicant's claimfor theabove reasons and communicated their decision to the applicant by their letter dated 3rd May, 1972. 30 By letter dated 25th June, 1972, the applicant returned to his claim and the respondents by letter dated 8th July, 1972, replied to him that they could not add anything more to the above letter of 3rd May, 1972. Byletterdated20thSeptember, 1972, theapplicantgavenotice 35 to the respondent committee that he had started studies for the associationship of the college of Preceptors (A.C.P.) oi' 543 Malachtos J . Vryonides v. Republic
(1981)London and was asking to be informed whether this could be considered as an additional qualification in accordance with the schemes of service. On 2nd November, 1972, the evaluation committee decided that by holding the A.C.P. diploma, the applicant could not be promoted to scale BIO. 5 On 28th December, 1972, the same Committee considered the matter again and decided that the A.C.P. diploma does not satisfy paragraph B(l)(c) of the schemes of service. The schemes of service for the post of a secondary education school 10 teacher on scale BIO are the following:"ΚΑΘΗΓΗΤΗΣ Έπΐ μισθολογικής Κλίμακος Β.10 £912X30-1032X36-1428 (Θέσις Πρώτου Διορισμού καΐ Προαγωγής) 15 Καθήκοντα καΐ Εύθΰναι:
  1. Διδακτικά καθήκοντα έν τω" πλαισίω τοϋ ωρολογίου καΐ αναλυτικού προγράμματος,είς άς τάΕεις και τμήματα ήθελεν ορίσει ό διευθυντής τοΰ σχολείου.
  2. 'Ενεργός συμμετοχή εις άπάσας τάς εργασίας, εκδηλώσεις και δραστηριότητας τοΰ σχολείου.
  3. ΟΙαδήποτε άλλα καθήκοντα ήθελον άνατεθη είς αυτόν προς το συμφέρον των μαθητών, τοΰ σχολείου καΐ της εκπαιδεύσεως έν γένει. 'Απαιτούμενα Προσόντα: 20 25 Α. Δια Πρώτον Διορισμόν (στ) Δια τάς Ξένας Γλώσσας Ι. Πτυχίον ελληνικού παν&πιστημίου ε!ς ιήν οίκείαν γλώσσαν και φιλολογίαν (α) Άπολυτήριον έ&ατα£ίου ελληνικού σχολείου ή δλλου αντιστοίχου τοιούτου μέσης εκπαιδεύσεως της Κύπρου ή του έΕωτερικοΰ (βλ. Σημ. (ιι) κατωτέρω) 544 30 3 C.L.R. Vryonides τ. Republic Malachtos J. καΐ (β) Πτυχίον/τίτλος έτερου πανεπιστημίου ε!ς τήν οίκείαν γλώσσαν καΐ φιλολογίαν ή Ισοδύναμον προσόν.
  4. Κατάρτισις είς τά Παιδαγωγικό (βλ. Σημ. (ι) κατωτέρω). 5 Β. Διά Προαγωγήν
  5. 10 15 Είς τήν θέσιν ταύτην προάγεται Καθηγητής ευρισκόμενος επί της κλίμακος Β.6, έάν(α) κατέχη τά προσόντα τά απαιτούμενα διά πρώτον διορισμόν είς τήν Θέσιν Καθηγητού επί της κλίμακος Β.
  6. Σημ.: Οί έν τη υπηρεσία κατά τήν Ιην Ιουλίου 1969 Καθηγηταΐ έπΐ της κλίμακος Β.3 προαγόμενοι είςτήνθέσινΚα­ θηγητού έπΐ της κλίμακος Β.6 δύνανταινά προάγωνται τηρουμένων των λοιπών όρων, καΐ είς τήν θέσιν Καθηγητοϋ έπΐ της κλίμακος Β.10 έστω και έάν δεν κατέχουν τά απαιτούμενα προσόντα διά πρώτον διορισμόν είς τήν θέσιν Καθηγητού έπΐ της κλίμακος Β.
  7. (β) έχη συμπληρώσει τουλάχιστον ενός έτους ύπηρεσίαν έπΐ τού ανωτάτου σημείου της κλίμακος Β.
  8. 20 Σημ.: Μέχρι της 1ης Σεπτεμβρίου 1972, τηρουμένων ιών λοιπών ορών, προάγεται και ό έχων συνολικήν έκπαιδευτικήν ύπηρεσίαν τουλάχιστον 14 ετών έστω καΐ έάν ούτος δέν θά εχη συμπληρώσει ενός έτους ύπηρεσίαν έπΐ τοΰ ανωτάτου σημείου της κλίμακος Β.
  9. 25 (γ) "Εχη κατά τά τελευταία πέντε έτη εύδόκιμον ύπηρεσίαν ώς και πρόσθετα είδικά προσόντα αποκτώμενα διά της έπΐ έν τουλάχιστον πληρ;ς άκαδημαϊκόν έτος μετεκπαιδεύσεως έίς είδικήν σχολήν τού εξωτερικού έγκρινομένην ύπό τοΰ Υπουργείου Παιδείας και βεβαιούμενα διά σχετικού πιστοποιητικού σπουδών." 30 ("SCHOOLMASTER On salary scale ΒΙΟ £912X30—1032X3—1428 (First entry and promotion post) 35 Duties and responsibilities:
  10. Teaching duties within the scope of the time and analy545 Malachtos J. Vryonides v. Republic
(1981)tical programme, in such classes and sections, as the director of the school might determine. 2. Active participation in all business, functions and activities of the school. 3. Any other duties which might be assigned to him in 5 the interest of the students, the school and education in general. Required qualifications: A. For First Entry 10 (
  1. b)For Foreign Languages 1. Degree of a Greek University in the relative language and literature or (
  2. a)School leaving certificate of a six year school or other 15 similar secondary school of Cyprus or abroad (see note (
  3. ii)below) and (
  4. b)Degree/title of any other university in the relative language and literature or equivalent qualification. 20 2. Experience in paedagogics. (see note (
  5. i)below). B. For Promotion 1. A schoolmaster on scale B6 is promoted if— (
  6. a)he possesses the qualifications required for first entry to the post of schoolmaster on scale B3. 25 Note: Those school masters serving on the 1st July, 1969 on scale B3 and promoted to the post of schoolmaster on scale B.6 may be promoted, provided the other conditions are complied with, to the post of Schoolmaster on Scale B.10 even though they 30 do not possess the required qualification for first appointment to the post of Schoolmaster onscale B.3. (
  7. b)he has completed at least one year's service on the top of salary scale B.6. 546 35 3 C.L.R. Vryonides τ. Republic Malacbtos J. 5 Note: Until the 1st September, 1972, provided the other provisions are complied with, a schoolmaster haviag a total educational service of at least 14 years may he promoted even though he has not completed one year's service on the top of salary scale B.6. 10 (
  8. c)he has for the last five years successful service and additional special qualifications acquired by at least one academic year post graduate course in a special school abroad approved by the Ministry of Education and verified by a relative certificate of studies"). Byletterdated 10thFebruary, 1973,therespondentCommittee communicatedtheir above decision to theapplicant tothe effect that the A.C.P. diploma cannotbe considered as an additional special qualification for the purposes of the schemes of service 15 for promotion from scale B6 to scale BIO. By letter dated 5th August, 1973, the applicant notified therespondent Committeethathewas successful intheexamina­ tionsandasaresult heobtainedthefinaldiplomaof theInstitute of Linguists—London, and he was applying for his promotion 20 to scale BIO. By letter dated 30th August, 1973, the applicant makes reference tohisprevious letter andgivessupplementary information as regards the said diploma. On24th September, 1973,anew letterfollows by theapplicant 25 addressed to the respondent Committee by which he was notifying it that he obtained the title M.I.L. (Member of the Institute of Linguists). On26th October, 1973,theapplicant addressed anotherletter to the respondent Committeeby which henotified it thathehad 30 obtained the A.C.P. diploma for which he started studies as referred to in his previous letter of 20th September, 1972. By letter dated 31st October, 1973, the applicant notified the respondent Committeethat over and above of what hehad referred to in his original application of 5th August, 1973, 35 he would like to add supplementary facts of his out of school activities. As a result of this letter therespondentCommittee invited the applicant, on the 27th December, 1973, to contact the Chairman of the Evaluation Committee. 547 Matachtos J. Vryonides v. Republic
(1981)By letter dated 26th February, 1974, the applicant notified the respondent Committee that he was awarded the title of M.T.L. Byletter dated 19th September, 1974,in which a photo copy inconnection with the title M.I.L., in which the relevant photo 5 copy was enclosed, he protests for the delay in receiving a reply to his application as regards his promotion to scaleBIO. Inthemeantime,theevaluation committeeaskedfor theopinion of the British Council as regards the recognition of the title M.I.L. in Great Britain. 10 By letter dated 18th October, 1974, the applicant protested totherespondentsthat inviewofthefact that hedidnotreceive any reply to his application, he would file a recourse in the Constitutional Court. Byletter dated 23rd October, 1974,the respondents informed 15 the applicant that they had already answered his claim since 10th February, 1973, and that a new claim based on a new diploma started with his letter of the 5th August, 1973,but in view of the fact that since then the applicant was continuously submitting to them new elements and facts in suppoit of his 20 claim, which the Evaluation Committee had to examine, the last one being submitted on 19th September, 1974, that is 13 months after the submission of the original application, the replywasdelayed. In anycaseitwashisrighttofilearecourse if he so wished. 25 On the 2nd November, 1974, the applicant filed Recourse No. 377/
  1. By letter dated 1st November, 1974, the applicant applied for an appointment with the Head of the Department of the Secondary Education and on 18th November, 1974, after 30 the said appointment took place, addressed to the respondent Committee a letter containing the history of the whole case. Byletter dated 20th February, 1975,the Head of the Department of Secondary Education, informed the applicant that his case was under consideration by the Evaluation Committee. On the 28th February, 1975, the respondent Committee decided that the claim of the applicant for promotion to scale BIO could not be accepted. 548 35 3 C.L.R. Vryonides τ. Republic Malachtos J. This decision of the respondent was taken after obtaining the opinion and advice of the Evaluation Committee, andwas communicated to theapplicant by letter dated 28th February,
  2. 5 10 This letter reads as follows: Επιθυμώ νααναφερθώείςτοαίτημα σας διά προαγωγήν είς θέσιν έπΐ της,κλίμακος Β.10 και να σας πληροφορήσω ότι ή Επιτροπή 'Εκπαιδευτικής 'Υπηρεσίας Ι£ετάσασα τήν αίτηση» σαςκαι λαβοϋσα υπ' όψιν πάντα τά ενώπιον αΰτης στοιχεία καιέγγραφα ώςκαΐ τάς απόψεις της 'Επι­ τροπής 'Αξιολογήσεως καθ* άς " Η Επιτροπή 'Αξιολογήσεως κρίνει Οτιτάπροσόντα τοΰ κ. Βρυωνίδη δέν δύνανται νά θεωρηθούν Οτι Ισο­ δυναμούν προς Πτυχίον/τίτλον Πανεπιστημίου. 15
  3. Ό κ. Βρυωνίδης βασίζει τήν αΐτησίν του κυρίως είς την άναγνώρισιν ή οποία προσφέρεται ϋπο της . 'Επιτροπής Burnham εν 'Αγγλία είς τό M.I.L. (Membership of the Institute of Linguists) ώς Ισοδυνάμου προς Πτυχίον Πανεπιστημίου. 20 Παρ' όλον οτι ή άναγνώρισις αυτή Οπό επιτροπής ήτις καθορίζει τήν άμοιβήντων εκπαιδευτικώνέν 'Αγγλία δέν είναι δεσμευτική διά τό Ύπουργεϊον Παιδείας, έν τούτοις πρέπει νά διευκρινισθη δτι: 25 30 35 (α) Ή άναγνώρισις προσφέρεται διά σκοπούς μισθοδοσίας μόνον, προφανώς λόγω της σπάνεως ήτις παρατηρείται έν 'Αγγλία είς καθηγητάς ξένων γλωσσών. (β) Ή άναγνώρισις προσφέρεται είς "Αγγλους οΐτινες * απέκτησαν τό M.I.L. είς γλώσσαν άλλην άπο τήν Άγγλικήν (Οί κανονισμοί τοΰ Ινστιτούτου δέν επιτρέπουν έξέτασιν εϊςτήνμητρικήν γλώσσαν). (γ) Είναι λίαν άπίθανον νά προσφερθη διορισμός εΐς 'Αγγλικά σχολεία είς ξένους καθηγητάςαποκτώντας τό M.I.L. είς τήν Άγγλικήν γλώσσαν ώς ή περίπτωσις τοΰ κ. Βρυωνίδη. (δ) Δέν γνωρίζομεν περίπτωσιν αναγνωρίσεως τοΰ 549 Malachtos J, Vryonides v. Republic
(1981)M.I.L. ύπό τοΰ 'Αγγλικού Πανεπιστημίου διά σκοπούς μεταπτυχιακών σπουδών. (ε) ΑΙ εξετάσεις τοΰ Linguists είναι ευρέως γνωστά! έν'Αγγλία ώςtests διάεπαγγελματίας μεταφραστάς.
  1. Έξητάσαμεν μετά προσοχής τό Syllabus των τελικών 5 εξετάσεων τοΰ Institute of Linguists. Πιστεύομεν ότι εΤναικατωτέρου επιπέδουτοΰ Diploma .ofEnglish Studies τοΰ Πανεπιστημίου τοΰ Cambridge κάτοχοι τοΰ οποίου κατατάσσονται υπό της Ε.Ε.Υ. είς τήν Β.3 κλίμακα. Τήν άποψιν αυτήν της 'Επιτροπής 10 επιβεβαιώνει ό καθηγητής των 'Αγγλικών κ.Νϊκος Μιχαηλίδης ό όποιος ήσχολήθη μέάμφοτέραςτάς εξε­ τάσεις. Γίνεται συγκρισις μέτό Diploma of English Studies διότι είναι διεθνώς γνωστόν προσόν καΐ διότι ως καιτά M.I.L. els τήν Άγγλικήν προσφέρεται μόνον 15 είς μή Άγγλους σπουδαστάς (external students).
  2. Τό M.I.L. δέν δύναται νά θεωρηθη ώς πρόσθετον είδικόν προσόν άποκτώμενον διά της έπΐ έν τουλά­ χιστον πλήρες άκαδημαϊκόν έτος μετεκπαιδεύσεως 20 είς είδικήν σχολήν τοΰ έξωτερικοΰ έγκρινομένην ύπό τοΰ Υπουργείου Παιδείας,' άπεφάσισεν ότιδέν δύναται νά άνταποκριθηείςτόαίτημασας καθότι (α) τά προσόντα σαςδένεΤναι Ισοδύναμα προς Πτυχίον/ 25 τίτλον Πανεπιστημίου τοΰθ* όπερ απαιτείται διά κατάταξη»είςθέσιν έπΐ της κλίμακος Β.
  3. (β) Τό ύφ' υμών κτηθέν Membership of the Institute of Linguists δέν θεωρείται πρόσθετον είδικόν προσόν άποκτώμενον διά της έπΐ εν τουλάχιστον πλήρες 30 άκαδημαϊκόν έτος μετεκπαιδεύσεως είς είδικήν σχολήν τοΰ έξωτερικοΰ έγκρινομένην ύπό τού Υπουργείου Παιδείας' ώς απαιτείται ύπό των Σχεδίων Υπηρεσίας διά προαγωγήν έκτηςκλίμακος Β.6 είςτήν κλίμακαν Β.10 'Ωσαύτως δέν πληροΰτε καΐ έτερον όρον έκ 35 τών απαιτουμένων ύπό τών Σχεδίων Υπηρεσίας διά τήνένλόγω προαγωγήν ήτοι δένέχετε συμπλη­ ρώσει ενός έτους ύπηρεσίαν έπΐτού ανωτάτου σημείου της κλίμακος Β.6." 550 3 C.L.R. 5 Vryonides v. Republic Malachloe J. ("I wish to refer to your claim for promotion to the post onscaleB.IOandtoinformyouthat theEducationalService Committee having examined you application and taking into consideration all elements and documents befoie it as well as the views of the Evaluation Committee by which *The Evaluation Committee considers that the qualificationsof Mr. Vryonides cannot be regarded that they are equivalent with a universitydegree/title. 10
  4. Mr. Vryonides bases his application mainly on the recognition which is accorded by the Burnham Committee in England to the M.I.L. (Membership of the Institute of Linguists) as equivalent to a University degree. 15 Even though this recognition by a Committee which determines the remuneration of educationalists in England is not binding on the Ministry of Education, yet it must be clarified that: 20 25 (a) The recognition is offered for salary purposes onlyevidently due to the scarsity whichis noticed inEnglandfor schoolmastersofforeignlanguages. (b) The recognition is offered to Englishmen who acquired the M.I.L. in a language other than English (The regulations of the Institute do not permit an examination in the mother language). (c) It is very improbable that an offer in English schools will be made to foreign schoolmasters who acquire the M.I.L. in the English language as in the case of Mr. Vryonides. 30 (d) We do not know a case where the M.I.L. was recognised by any English University for.post graduate studies. (e) The examinations of Linguists are broadly known in England as tests for professional translators; 35
  5. We have examined with care the Syllabus of the final examinations of the Institute of Linguists. 551 Malachtos J. Vryonides v. Republic
(1981)We believe that it is of a lower level than the Diploma of English Studies of the Cambridge University, holders of which are emplaced by the Educational Service Committee on Scale B.3. This view of the Committee is verified by school- 5 master of English Mr. Nicos Michaelides who has been engaged with both examinations. Compa­ rison is being made with the Diploma of English Studies because it is an internationally known qualification and because the M.I.L. in English 10 is offered only to non-English students (external students). 3. The M.I.L. cannot be considered as additional special qualification acquired by a one year post graduate academiccourse in a special school abroad 15 approved by the Ministry of Education' decided that it cannot respond to your request as, (
  1. a)your qualifications arenot equivalent to a university Degree/title which is required for emplacement to the post on scale B. 10. 20 (
  2. b)the acquitcd by you Membership of the Institute of Linguists is not considered 'additional special qualification acqu:red by a one year post graduate academiccoursein aspecial school abroad approved by the Ministry of Education' as reguired by the 25 Schemes of Service for promotion from scale B.6 to scale B.IO. Likewise you do not fulfil another of the required provisions οΐ the Schemes of Service for the said promotioni.e. you have not completed one year's service on the top of salary scale B.6.") 30 As a result, the applicantfiledthe present recourse claiming a declaration of the Court that the decision and/or act of the respondent Committee contained in the letter of itsChaiiman, dated28th February, 1975,by whichtheydecidednottocmplace the applicant, a teacher of secondaiy education,on scale B.IO, 35 is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. Even after the filing of the present recourse the applicant continuedhis correspondenceonthesubject withtherespondent 552 3 C.L.R. Vryonides v. Republic Malachtos J. Committee. By letters dated 23.5.1975, 5.6.1975, 8:7.1975 and 22.8.1975, the applicant submitted new facts to support his allegations that his qualifications were equal to a university degree and expressed certain remarks on the decision of 5 28.2.1975, the subject matter of the present recourse. On 17.1.1976 the respondent Committee examined'theclaim oftheapplicantonceagaininthelightofthenewfactssubmitted by him and rejected it. This decision was communicated to the applicant on the same day. 10 On 22.3.1976, the date fixed for hearing of this recourse, the applicant filed an application for amendment of his claim whichwas,with theconsent of counselfor therespondentCommittee, granted on the same day. The amendment was that after the words "dated 28th February, 1975", the woids "and 15 by 17th January, 1976" should be added. This in effect amounted to the applicant attacking in the present recourse both the decision of the respondent Committee contained in the letter of 28.2.1975 and 17.1.1976. I must say straight away that the application for amendment 20 was wrongly granted, even with the consent of counsel of the respondent Committee. Innocasethedecisionoftherespondent Committee of 17.1.1976, whether being an executory one or confirmatory of the decision of 28.2.1975 complained of in thepresent recourse,could beembodiedinthepresent recourse. 25 For this reason Ido not intend to pronounce on the submissionsand arguments of counselmade onfacts whichtook place after the 28th February, 1975, when the decision complained of in the present recourse was issued. Counsel for applicant, in support of his case, submitted that 30 the matter under consideration in the present recourse depends on whether the qualifications of the applicant are equivalent to a university degree or title in accordance with paragraph B(l)(
  3. c)of the Schemes of Service, having in mind that it is an admitted fact that the applicant is a graduate of a secondary 35 school and of the Teachers' Training College of Morphou. The application of the applicant for promotion on scale B.IO was supported, as it appears from the whole correspondence, on the following qualifications: (
  4. a)A.C.P. diploma in education; 553 Malachtos J. Vryonides v. Republic
(1981)(
  1. b)University of London Institute of Education; (
  2. c)Diploma in the teaching of English as a foreign language; (
  3. d)Cambridge certificate of Proficiency in English; (
  4. e)Final Diploma of the Institute of Linguists; 5 (
  5. f)Membership of the Institute of Linguists (MIL). Counsel for applicant further submitted that the respondent Committee confined themselves to the examination of only the MIL title and did not examine all the qualifications of theapplicantcollectively. Thisomission,ashealleged,amounts 10 to misconception of facts which, by itself, alone, lenders the decision complained of null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. He further argued that irrespective of the above omission, the respondents wrongly evaluated the MIL title as not equivalent to a university degree. Finally, hesubmitted, 15 that the decision of the respondent Committee was notduly reasoned. I must say that I find no merit in the above submissions of counsel for applicant. It is clear from the relevant minutes of the respondent Committee, and their lettertotheapplicant 20 dated28.2.1975,aswellastherelevantcorrespondencecontained in the personal file of the applicant, that all the qualifications of the applicant, including the MIL title, were carefully considered by the respondent Committee before issuingthedecision complained of. In reaching this decision they took into consi- 25 deration alltherelevantfacts,includingtheviewsofthe Evaluation Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a misconception of facts on their part. As regards the reasoning of their decision, this is also contained in their letter to the applicant dated 28.2.1975,where 30 it is clearly stated that he did not possess the required qualificationsspecifiedintherelevantSchemesofServiceforpromotion on scale B.IO. For theabovereasons,thisrecoursefailsandis, consequently, dismissed. On the question of costs I make no Order. Application dismissed. No order as to costs. 554 35

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

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