clr/1982/1982_3_30.pdf

(1982)1982 January 22 [MALACHTOS, J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION SOTERIOS PITTOKOPITES, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC O F CYPRUS, THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, Respondent. {Case No. 109/74). Educational officers—Schemes of service—Qualifications—Schoolmaster on scale B.1Q—Scheme of service requiring, inter alia, "degree or title" of a University—Applicant holding University diploma—Respondent Commission rightly found that his qualifications not satisfying requirements of scheme of service—Diploma 5 an inferior qualification to that of a degree. Words and phrases—"Utthersity degree"—"University diploma". Constitutional Law—Equality—Discrimination—Article 28.1 of the Constitution—Principle of equality entails the equal or similar treatment of all those who arefound to be in the same situation. 10 The applicant, a secondary educstion schoolmaster of Geography on scale B.6, applied for emplacement on scale B.lO. The qualifications required by the scheme of service* of the scaie B.10 post were a degree of a Greek University in Geography or

(1)a school leaving certificate of a six-year Greek school 15 or other corresponding school of secondary education in Cyprus of abroad and

(2)Degree/title of another University in the relevant subject or an equivalent qualification. The scheme of service* of the scale B.3 post required, inter alia, a diploma in Geography of the University of London or an equivalent 20 The schemes of service of scales B.10 and B.3 posts are quoted at pp. 33-35 post. 30 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Pittokopites v. Republic qualification. Applicant possessed a leaving certificate of a secondary education Greek School, diploma of the Paedagogic Academy and a diploma of Geography of the London University. The respondent Commission* after taking into considerationtheviewsoftheEvaluationCommitteeon qualifications, rejected his claim for emplacement on scale B.10 because he did not "fulfil the qualifications required by the scheme of ssrvice with regard to a University degree or title or equivalent qualification"; and hence this recourse, Counsel for the applicant contended: (

1. a)That the qualifications of the applicant taken together were equivalent to a degree or title of a University and that the respondent Committee bynot takingthem together it wrongly applied the law. 15 20 25 30 35 (
2. b)That there was no difference between the alternative paragraph of the scheme of service of the scale B.10 post and the scheme of service of the scale B.3 post. (
3. c)That the respondent Committee discriminated against applicant because five other educational officers were promoted or appointed to the scaleB.10 post although they possessed qualifications inferior to those of the applicant. Held,

(1)that the allegation that the qualifications of the applicant were not evaluated together as a whole is not true because in the sub judice decision it is clearly stated that even if his qualifications were evaluated together they cannot bs considered as an equivalent qualification to a degree or title of a University; that the respondent Committee having in mind the advice of the Evaluation Committer, in exercising its discretion, rightly found that the qualifications of the applicant takentogether innocasefulfilled therequirementsoftherelevant scheme of service; accordingly contention (a) should fail.

(2)That there is a lot of difference between paragraph (b) of the alternative clause of the scheme of service of salary scale B.10 and of the scheme of service of salary scale B.3 because the first one requires a degree (ptihion) or title of a University See its decision at p. 33 post. 31 Pittokopttes v. Republic

(1982)and the other one requires only a diploma of geography of the London University; that certainly a diploma is an inferior qualification to that of a degree; accordingly contention (b) should fail.

(3)That the principle of equality entails the equal or similar 5 treatment of allthosewhoarefound to beinthesamesituation; that in this case it cannot be said that the applicant was, at the time the decision complained of was taken, in the same situation as thefiveeducational officers in question; accordingly contention (c) should, also, fail. 10 Application dismissed. Cases referred to: Republic v. Arakian and Others

(1972)3 CL.R. 294. Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to emplace 15 applicant on salary scale B.10. L. Papaphilippou, for the applicant. A. S. Angelides, for ths respondent. Cur. adv. vult. MALACHTOS J. read the following judgment. The applicant in this recourse claims a declaration of the court that the act and/or decision of th.3 respondents dated 6th February, 1974, by which ihey refused to emplace the applicant in a post of salary scale B.10, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. 20 25 The relevant facts of the case, shortly put, are the following: The applicant was first appointed as a school teacher in the elementary education on 1st September, 1958 and as from 1st January, 1970, he was appointed as a teacher of Geography in secondary education on salary scale B.3. At the lime of his 30 appointment he possessed the following qualifications:(

1. a)a leaving certificate of a secondary education Greek school; (
2. b)Diploma of the Paedagogic Academy; and (
3. c)a diploma of Geography of the London University. On 1st January, 1972 he was promoted to salary scale B.6. 32 35 3 C.L.R. Pittokopites v. Republic Malachtos J. The qualifications for promotionto salary scale B.6 arethe same as those of salary scab B.3. 5 On 20.2.1973, the applicant applied to the respondent Com­ mittee for promotion on salary scale B.10. His application was rejected by the respondent Committee on 5.3.1973. The respondent Committee at its meeting of 6.2.1974,recon­ sidered the application of the applicantin the light of theviews of the Evaluation Committee and decided to reject it again. This decision of the respondent Committee was communicated 10 to the applicant by letter dated 6.2.1974. This letter reads as follows: 15 20 " I wish to refer to the letter of your advocates dated 12.10.1973, by which they come back on your rejected claim for emplacement to the post of Scale B.10 and to inform you that the Committee of Educational Service took into consideration on this matter the views of the Evaluation Committee on qualifications and what was submitted by you and your advocates before it on 20.11.1973, as well as all the elements and documents produced and found that:(
4. a)your qualifications—even if evaluatedtogether—cannot be considered as equivalent qualifications to a degree or title of a university; and 25 (
5. b)the diploma of geography of the University of London is not considered as a degree or title of a university. 30 In view of the above, the Committee of Educational Service cannot accept your claim for your emplacement to a poit on scale B.10 as you donotfulfil the qualifications required by the schemes of service with regard to a university degree or title or equivalent qualification". The schemes of service for the post of a secondary education school teacher on salary scale B.10 and B.3 are the following: "Α. Θέσις Καθηγητούέττϊ μισθολογικής κλίμακος Β. 10 Απαιτούμενο:προσόντα: 35 Δια τα Φυσικά: (Φυσική, Φυσιογνωσία, Γεωγραφία, Χημεία και Γεωπονία) 33 Malachtos J. Piltokopites v. Republic

(1)-(α) Άπολυτήριον εξαταξίου ελληνικού σχολείου ή άλλου αντιστοίχου τοιούτου μέσης εκπαιδεύσεως τής Κύπρου ή τού έΕωτερικού καΐ (β) Δίπλωμα Γεωγραφίας τού Πανεπιστημίου τοΰ Λονδίνου ή ίσοδύναμον προσόν. 15

(2)Κατάρτησις εις τά Παιδαγωγικά". ("Α. Post of Secondary Education School Master on salary scale 5.10. 20 Required qualifications: For Physics: (Psysics, Natural science, Geography, Chemistry and Agriculture) 1. Degree of a Greek University in the relevant subject 25 or (

1. a)School leaving certificate of a six year Greek school or olher corresponding school of secondary education in Cyprus or abroad and (
2. b)Degree/title of another university in the relative subject or equivalent qualification. 30 2. Training in pedagogy. B. Post of secondary Education School Master on salary scale B.3. For Geography: (a)-(
3. a)School leaving certificate of a six year Greek school 34 35 3 C.L.R. 5 Pittokopites v. Republic Malachtos J. or other corresponding schoolof secondaryeducation in Cyprus or abroad and (
4. b)Diploma in Geography of the London University or equivalent qualification. 2. Training in pedagogy"). Counselfor applicant in arguing his casestated that the only pointthatfallsforconsiderationinthisrecourseisastowhether the qualifications of the applicant fall within the ambit of the 10 alternative clause paragraph (
5. b)of the scheme of service for the post of a secondary education schoolteacher of geography onsalaryscaleB.10. Inotherwoids,whetherthe qualifications of the applicant are equivalent to a university degree or title. In support of his case counsel for applicant submitted that the 15 qualifications oftheapplicanttaken together,that is,theleaving certificate of a secondary education school, the diploma of the Paedagogic Academy and the diploma of geography of the London University are equivalent to a degree or title of a university, and that the respondent committee by not taking tho.se 20 qualifications together, they wrongly applied the law. 1must say that 1findno merit inthis submission ofcounsel. First of allthe allegation that thequalifications oftheapplicant were not evaluated together, as a whole, is not true and this comes out from the letter of the respondent committee to 25 the applicant dated 6th February, 1974, which contains the decision complained of, where it is clearly stated that even if his qualifications wereevaluated together, cannot be consideied as equivalent qualification to a degree or title of a university. In this connection, the respondent committee having in 30 mind the advice of the evaluation committee, in exercising its discretion, rightly found that the qualifications of the applicant taken together in no casefulfil the requirements of the relevant scheme of service. Another submission of counsel for applicant is that there 35 isno difference betweenthealternative paragraph of thescheme of service of salary scale B.10 and of the scheme of service of salary scab B.3. This submission of counsel again, is not correct as there is a lot of difference between paragraph (
6. b)of the alternative 35 Malachtos J. Pittokopites v. Republic

(1982)clause of the scheme of service of salary scale B.10 and of the scheme of service of salary scale B.3. The first one requires a degree (ptihion) or title of a university and the other one requires only a diploma of geography of the London University. Certainly a diploma is an inferior qualification to that of a degree. 5 La&tly, counsel for applicant submitted that the respondent committee in taking the decision complained of acted discriminately against the applicant as regards other persons and gave the names of five educational officers who were promoted or 10 appointed to salary scale B.10who, as healleged,they possessed qualifications inferior to those of the applicant. In doing so the respondent committee violated Article 28.1 of the Constitution which provides that all persons are equal before the law, theadministration andjusticeand areentitledtoequalprotection 15 thereof and treatment thereby. In answer to that submission, counsel for the respondent stated that, after investigating the matter, it wai found out that the first two educational officers were appointed to the post of educational officer in public schools of technical education 20 as they possess the higher national diploma required by the relevant scheme of service. The other two were emplaced as educational officers Class A in technical education on 1.1.1966 by virtue of section 11 of Law 10/63 of the Greek Communal Chamber which was then in force. The last one is a teacher 25 of physicaltraining in secondary education and his qualifications are of the level requhed by the relevant scheme of service. In the case of The Republic v. Nishan Arakian and Others

(1972)3 C.L.R. 294, it has been decided 1hat the principle of equality entails the equal or similar treatment of all those who 30 are found to be in the same situation. In the present ca*e it cannot be said that the applicant was, at the time the decision complained of was taken, in the same situation as the aforementioned educational officers and,therefore, thelast submission of counsel for applicant cannot stand either. 35 For the above reasons this recourse fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Application dismissed. No order as to costs. 36