(1983)1983 August 29 [MALACHTOS J.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION GEORGHIOS PRODROMOU, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS THROUGH THE MINISTRY AND/OR THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION, Respondent. {Application in Recourse No.395/80). Administrative Law—Administrativeacts or decisions—Revocation —Does not necessarily consist in theuseof strict wording inthe subsequent act but may be derived indirectly from it—Recourse against transferfrom Pancyprian Gymnasiumto Akropolis B' Gymnasium—Provisional order suspending transferpending determinationof the recourse—Following compliance with provisional order respondent deciding transferring applicantfrom Akropolis B' Gymnasium tothePancyprianGymnasium—Suchdecisionamounts to a revocation of the previous decision—Recourse remained without an object—Application for imposition of punishment 10 on respondentfor disobedience to theprovisional order dismissed. Provisional order—Disobedience—Contempt proceedings. On 16.8.1980 the respondent Authority decided to transfer the applicant from the Pancyprian Gymnasium to the Akropolis Gymnasium. As against this decision the applicant filed the IS above recourse and, at the same time, applied for a provisional order. On 10.12.1980 this Court granted the provisional order applied for on the ground that the respondent authority has not acted in compliance with the relevant- Law and the Regulations made thereunder. Immediately after the granting 20 of the provisional order the respondent Authority instructed the applicant to report for duly at the Pancyprian Gymnasium and in fact he resumed his duties as Headmaster at the Pancyprian Gymnasium on 11.12.1980. 990 5 3 C.L.R. Prodromou γ. Republic On the 22nd December, 1980 the Head of the Higher and Secondary Education addressed the following letter to the applicant: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 "We inform you thattheAppropriate Authority decided on the basis of section 39
(2)of Law 10/69, for educational reasons to transfer you from the Akropolis B' Gymna sium to the Pancyprian Gymnasium (Lyceum) as from 15th December 1980". By letter dated 18.7.1983the applicant was informed that the appropriate authority had decided for educational reasons to transfer him to Makarios C' Gymnasium as from 1st September,
- It was the case for the applicant that the provisional Order issued on 10th December, 1980, was still in force since the recourse has not been finally determined. So the respondent Authority by issuing the decision contained in the letter dated 18.3.1983 acted in disobedience to the provisional Order and by the present application the Court was prayed to impose on the respondent the appropriate punishment. Held, that the revocation of an administrative act, does not necessarily consist in the use of strict formal wording in the subsequent act but may be derived indirectly from it; that the respondent authority by instructing the appellant to return to the Pancyprian Gymnasium and resume his duties on the 11.
- 1980, fully complied with the Provisional order; that it could be reasonably be inferred that the letter of the 22.12.1980 contains a decision by which the previous decision to transfer the applicant was revoked and so the present recourse remained without an object; accordingly the application must fail. Application dismissed. Application. Application for an order of the Court compelling the respon dent to comply with the order of the Court dated 10.12.80 whereby the suspension of the transfer of applicant was ordered. A.
- Angelides, for the applicant. G. Constantinou (Miss), Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. MALACHTOS J. gave the following judgment. In view of the urgency of theseproceedings Ishall proceed anddeliver judgment 40 forthwith. 991 Malacttos J. Prodromou v. Republic
(1983)On the 23rd July, 1983, the present application was filed by the applicant claiming, as stated therein, the following relief: • A. An Order of the Court compelling the respondent to comply with the Order of the Supreme Court in the above numbsr and titlecasedated 10.12.80,by which, among other matters, it 5 wasdecided and ordered thesuspension of histransfer from the post of Headmaster of the Pancyprian Gymnasium of Nicosia till the final determination of the recourse, and B. An Order of the Court compelling the respondent to obey the Order of the Supreme Court in the above number and title 10 recourse by imposing a fine or imprisonment or damages and costs. Therelevantfactsasfarasthepresentapplicationisconcerned, shortly put, are the following: * The respondent authority by virtue of section 39
(2)of the 15 Public Educational Service Law of 1969 (Law 10/69), decided on 16.8.80totransfer theapplicantfrom thePancyprianGymnasium as from 1.9.80 to the Akropolis B* Gymnasium. As against this decision the applicant on 4.11.80 filed the above recourseand, at ths sametime,applied for a Provisional Order. 20 On 10.12.80 this Court, after hearing counsel on both sides, granted the Provisional Order applied for on the ground that thedecision ofthe respondent authority, asadmitted bycounsel for the Republic, was not incompliance with the relevant Law and the Regulations made thereunder. The judgment of the 25 Court isreported in
(1981)3C.L.R. 38and therelevant part at page 41 is as follows: "In the instant case learned Counsel for the Republic concededthat from a searchoftherelevantfiles whichshehad made this was a case of flagrant illegality and gave all the 30 relevant details. From the facts which have been placed before me it is apparent that there exists flagrant illegality in the instant case and according to the principles which have been set out hereinabovetheprovisional order appliedfor should be 35 made. I would, therefore, make a provisional order ordering the suspension ofthe transfer of the applicant from the post of Headmaster of the Pancyprian Gymnasium 992 3 C.L.R. Prodromou τ. Republic Malacfatos J. Nicosia to the post of Headmaster of the B' Gymnasium Acropolis Nicosia until the final determination of the recourse. 5 10 With regard to costs 1 hereby make an order for the payment by the respondents of £20.- to applicant towards his costs. Regarding the substance of the case due to thestatement of the learned Counsel of the applicant and due to the fact that, as appearing inthefile of thecase, theopposition has not yet been filed, the case is adjourned sine die with in structions to the Registrar to have the case fixed for Di rections on the application of any one of the parties". Immediately after theissueby theCourtof theabovedecision, the respondent authority instructed the applicant, who was at 15 the time serving at the Akropolis B' Gymnasium to report for duty at the Pancyprian Gymnasium. In fart, the applicant resumed hisduties as HeadmasteratthePancyprianGymnasium on the 11th December, 1980. On the 22nd December, 1980, the Head of the Higher and 20 Secondary Education addressed the following letter to the ap plicant: 25 "We inform you thattheAppropriate Authority decided on the basis of section 39
(2)of Law 10/69, for educational reasons to transfer you from the Akropolis B' Gymnasium to the Pancyprian Gymnasium (Lyceum) as from 15th December, 1980." On the 9th September, 1981,counsel for applicant applied to the Registry for thefixing of therecourse but for unknown rea sons theapplication remained inthefile andnofurther step was 30 taken by the parties. By letter dated 18th July, 1983 the applicant was informed that the appropriate authority had decided for educational reasons to transfer him to Makarios C Gymnasium as from 1st September, 1983. 35 It is the case for the applicant that the Provisional Order issuedon 10thDecember,1980,isstillinforce sincetherecourse 993 Malachtos J. Prodromou v. Republic
(1983)has not beenfinally determined. So the respondent Authority by issuing the decision contained in the letter dated 18th July, 1983, acted in disobedience to theprovisional Order and by the present application the Court is prayed to impose on the respondent the appropriate punishment. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent authority complied wtth the Provisional Order and that byitssubsequent decision contained inthe letter to the applicant dated 22nd December, 1980 revoked the decisioncontained inthepreviousletter tohimdated 16thAugust, 10 1980and sothenet result isthat the recourse remained without an object. I have considered the arguments of counsel and I must say that I fully agree with the submission put forward by counsel for the respondent. It is clear that the respondent authority 15 byinstructing theapplicant to return tothePancyprian Gymnasium and resume his duties on the 11th December, 1980, fully complied with the Provisional Order issued by the Court on the previous day. Itcould alsobereasonably inferred that theletter ofthe Head 20 of the Higher and Secondary Education to the applicant dated 22nd December, 1980,contains adecision bywhichtheprevious decisionto transfer theapplicant wasrevoked and sothepresent recourse remained without an object. Asit isstated inthe Conclusionsfrom CaseLawof theGreek 25 Council of State 1929 - 1959at page 199,the revocation of an administrative act does not necessarily consist in the use of strict formal wording in thesubsequent act but may bederived indirectly from it. For the above reasons this application fails and is dismissed. 30 On the question of costs I make no Order. Application dismissed withno order as tocosts. 994 5