clr/1982/1982_3_1151.pdf

(1)and 27

(1)of the Educational Service Law, 1969 (Law 10/69) and regulation 10 of theEducational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Emplacements. Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations, 1972. The following two issues arose for consideration in this tecourse: 10 15 (

1. a)Whether the Council of Ministers had power to fill posts of Schoolmasters on contract by deciding to renew existing contracts; and (
2. b)whether the respondent Commission in renewing existing contiacts had to exercise any discretion in this connection under the provisions of section 5

(1)of the Educational Seivice Law, 1969 (Law 10/69) and regulation 10 of the lelevant Regulations of 1972. Held,

(1)that section 27

(1)* of Law 10/69 empowered the Council of Ministeis to decide to fill posts of schoolmasteis on Section 27

(1)provides as follows: "A permanent post isfilled either on permanent basis oron a temporary basis on contract for a specified period or on a month-to-month basis, as the Council of Ministers may decide". 1151 Papakyriacou v. Republic

(1982)contract by renewing existing contracts including those of the interested paities.

(2)That there was no need to comply once again with section 5

(1)of Law 10/69 and regulation 10of the Regulations of 1972 whentheexistingcontractswererenewedbecausesuchcomplian- -5ce had already taken place when the intererted parties were "*" appointed on contract for the previous school year. Application dismissed. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent whereby 10 fhe interested paities were appointed to the post of master of mathematics in preference and instead of the applicant. A.S. Angelides with N. HjiGavriel and Ch. Ierides, for the applicant. R. Vrahimi (Mrs.), for the respondent. 15 Y. Charalambous, for the interested party Ph. Charalambous. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse the applicant challenges, in effect, the 20 decision of the respondent Educational Service Commission to appoint, instead of him, P. HjiPanayi, D. Ioannides, D. Ioannou, Ph. Charalambous, Fr. Peyiotou, D. HjiApostolou, I. Georghiadou and Chr. Tamani (to be referred to heieinafter as the "interested parties") to the post of master of rnathsmatics 25 as fiom 1st September

1. The applicant is a giaduate of the Faculty of Mathematics of Athens University. He applied foi appointment as a schoolrnastei and his name was included in the list of those eligible to be appointed. The interested parties were, also, included in such list. On 19th September 1979 the applicant was given an appointment on contract to the post of master of mathematics for the school-year 1979/1980but, ashe wasunable for personal reasons to accept such appointment, it was revoked by the lespondent 35 Commission on 25th September
2. The interested parties were appointed by the said Commission 1152 30 3 C.L.R. Papakyriacou v. Republic TriantafylUdesP. for the school-year 1979/1980on diveu dates ranging from 26th September 1979 to 23id November 1979; they were appointed on contract. 5 On 16th September 1981 the applicant informed the Commission that he was seek'ng once again appointment as master of mathematics. On 4th September 1980 the Council of Ministers (see ils decision No. 19.509) decided that there should be renewed all the contiacU of achoolmsteis who were serving on contract 10 durng thi school-year 1979/
3. As a result the Director\ General of the Ministiy of Education, by a Ieltei dated 8th \ September 1980, requesled the respondent Commission to pro\ ceed to renew such contracts as from 1st September
4. I Thus, at its mee'ing on 10th September 1980 the Commission 15 decided to renew, for the school-year 1980/1981, the appoint­ ments on contract of all those who had been serving on contract I duiing the previous school-year, and among them were the interested parties. 20 25 30 As no new appointments were made for the school-year 1980/ 1981 the applicant was not appointed and he filed the present recourse. Counsel for the applicant submitted that since there is no express provision either in the Educational Seivice Law, 1969 (Law 10/69) or in the Educational Officeis (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Emplacements, Transfers, Piomotions and Related Matters) Regulations, 1972 (see No. 205 in the Third Supplement to the Official Gazette of 10.11.1972) empowering the Council of Ministers to decide to renew contracts of educa­ tionalists, its aforementioned decision of 4th September 1980, for the renewal of contracts which had aclually expiied on 31st August 1980, was not validly reached. Section 27

(1)of Law 10/69 reads as follows: 35 "27.-

(1)Μόνιμος θέσις πληρούται είτε μονίμως, είτε προσω­ ρινώς έπϊ ονμβάσει δι' ώρισμενον χρονικόν διάστημα, είτε άπό μηνός εΐς μήνα, ώς τό Ύπουργικόν Συμβούλιον ήθελεν αποφασίσει". ("A permanent post is filled cither on a permanent basis or on a temporary basis on contiact for a specified period 1153 TriantafyUides P. Papakyriacou v. Republic

(1982)or on a month-to-month basis,asthe Council of Ministers may decide"). In my opinion the above legislative provision empowered the Council of Ministersto decidetofillpostsof schoolmasters on contract by renewing existing contracts, including those of 5 the interested parties, and, therefore, the aforesaid submission of counsel for the applicant is noi well-founded. It has been further argued on behalf of the applicant that because of the decision in question of the Council of Ministers the respondent Commission had to renew the contracts of the 10 interested parties without exercising any discretion in this connection and, thus, the provisions of section 5

(1)of Law 10/69 and regulation 10of the Regulations of 1972have been contravened. It is not disputed that under section 5

(1)of Law 10/69 the 15 Commission is the organ empowered to make appointments of educational officers; and under regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1972 appointments on contract are made in order of priority from among the candidates who are inscribed on the list of those eligible to be appointed; and on the relevant 20 list the serial number of the applicant was 16,and those of the interested parties were 98, 101,102, 107, 111,116, 118and

1. In my opinion there war no need to comply once again with the aforesaid legislative provisions when the contracts of the interested parties were renewed for the school-year 1980/1981, 25 because,as it appears from thematerial before me,suchcompliance had already taken place when the interested parties were appomtcd on contract for the school-year 1979/
2. On that occasion all relevant considerations were duly taken into account in accordance with the legislative provisions and prin- 30 ciples of law applicable to such a matter; and, actually, as already stated, the applicant was then given an appointment, too, and in advance of the interested parties, but he did not accept it. in effect, no new appointment was made foi the school-year 1980/1981, but only the existing ones, which had 35 been duly made, were piolongcd by being lenewed. For all the foiegoing reasons I have not been satisfied that there exists good ground for annulling the appointments on 1154 3 C.L.R. 5- Papakyriacou v. Republic TriantafyUides P. contract of the interested parties and,therefore, this recouise has to be dismissed. Inthelight, however, of all relevant considerations Τhave decided notto make an order as toits costs against the applicant. Recourse dismissed with no order as to costs. \ \ 1155