clr/1984/1984_3_15.pdf

(1984)refused and as a result the> filed this recourse contending that their emplacement on ( cale A5-A7 was made in breach of rights vested in them and in defiance of the principle of equalit) enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution Held, that it is settled in administrate law ihai unreserved 5 acceptance of an administrative act, precludes the acceptoi from questioning it, that since the applicants accepted to join the secondary education without qualification their recourse is not viable and muit be dismissed Held,further, that the recourse must fail on the merits because no officer has a vested right to promotion and also no question of vested rights can arise in this case and because the complaint of inequality is ill-founded (pp 18-19 post) 10 Application clismiwed ase referred to 15 Paphim and Others ν Republic

(1983)3 C L R 255, Pascha/i ν Republic

(1966)3 C L.R. 593, Markou \ Republic

(1968)3 C L R. 267, Theocharous ν Republic

(1969)3 C L.R. 318, Mvnantfm ν Republic

(1977)3 C LR. 165, Tompoli ν CYTA. 20 {1980} 3 C L R 266, HjiConstantmou ν Republic

(1980)3 C.L.R. 184, EconomicH ν Republic

(1972)3 C L R 506, Republic \ Menelaou

(1982)3 C L R

1. ecourse. 25 Recourse against the refusal or failure of the respondents to -knowledge applicant's eligibility to ascend to scale A.I 1 under le grading system for educationalists which was introduced by aw 12/
2. A S Angeltdes, R. Vrahmu (Mrs), for the applicants. 30 for the respondents. Cur, adv. vult. 16 3 C.L.R. Alexandrou and Others v. Republic PIKIS J. read the following judgment. This is an applicatioi by 34 teachers of secondary education, classified as Teachers ο Practical Knowledge, complaining of unequal, unjustified an« erroneous treatment by the Educational Authorities arising fron 5 their refusal or failure to acknowledge eligibility to ascend ti Scale All under the grading system for educationalists intro duced by Law 12/
3. Basically, they contest their emplacemen on grade A5 - A7, allegedly made in breach of rights vested ii them and in defiance of the principle of equality enshrined ii 10 Article
4. Moreover, the authorities are guilty of bad faith ii refusing to grade them in a manner that would give them th. right to rise up to Scale Al I, a right they would have enjoyed i they had remained as teachers of elementary education provtdct they were promoted to Assistant Headmasters. 15 20 I must confess I find the recourse muddled, It is difficult u discern the precise act or decision against which the recourse i: directed, as well as the legal and factual foundations of thi recourse. Doing my best to distil the substance of the appli cation, reading through the application, the material in the fik and the address submitted on behalf of the applicants, the cast for the applicants may be depicted as follows: 25 The decision to grade the applicants in the manner above explained, though consonant with the provisions of Law 12/8! and the collective agreement that preceded it, is. nonetheless. wrong because of - 30 (a) Failure to preserve the rights of the applicants that allegedly vested because of their former service it'. elementary education, judged in combination with the circumstances under which they joined secondan education. 35 , (b) Failure to heed the principle of equality embodied in Article
5. arising from their unequal treatment it'. comparison to other teachers of the faculty of practical knowledge, namely graduates of the Higher Technical Institute and. (c) breach of the principle of good faith that binds the Administration to live up to its promises, estopping it thereafter from deviating therefrom. The respondents deny the validity of the complaints, while 40 they dispute the justiciability of the recourse. The applicants 17 Ptkis J Atexandrou and Others \ Republic

(1984).tre precluded from challenging the decision toemplace them at Scale A5 -A7 and the consequences deriving therefrom, because of their unqualified acceptance of the offer made to join the secondary education at the above position, resulting in organic severance of their link from elementary education To under- 5 stand the implications of this submission, we must refer to the circumstances under which applicants joined secondary eduva'ion Following attendance of a course, the applicants were se­ tt nded, in 1969, on their application to serve as secondary 10 sthool teachers of practical knowledge Ever since, it was tl eir persistent demand they should be given the right to join > condary education. Their claim was espoused by the Union < f Teachers of Technical Education (ΟΕΛΤΚ) This right * as acknowledged by thecollective agreement between Govern- 15 1 lent and educationalists and given effect to by Law 12/81. hey were given the right tojoin theestablishment of secondary ducation retrospectively, as from 1979 I had occasion to examine theambit and impact of Law 12/81 η Paphitis And Others ν The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R 255 20 Applicants accepted the offer to join secondary education at Scale A5 - A7 without qualification They attached no con­ ditions to their acceptance and made no reservation of rights whatever It is by this unqualified acceptance they joined •ccondary education There was nothing to prevent them from 25 everting to elementary education, in fact, some of their colleagues chose that comsc It is settled m administrative c law that uniescivul acceptance of an admmi trativc act ρreelu des the acceptor from questioning it (sec, inter aha. Pawhah\ Ihc Republic

(1966)3 C L R 593, Mailou ν The Republic 30 Ρ 9 ( Χ | 3 Γ Ϊ R 2(rf, Ίl.eotharous ν TheRepublic

(1969)3 f \ R 118 Muianiiuw Ihc Republic

(1977)3C L R lt>5; Tomhoh \ ( ) 7 A

(1980)3C L R. 266: Hadiuonstanttnou \ The Republic

(1980)λ C L R 184) Consequent the mmnso of ihe applicants is not viable and must on thai accounl hodismissed 3D However, examination of the ments of the leuunse uuihl not lead to any different result eithu Speaking of vested lights, κ is abundantly tleai no officer has a vested right to promotion (see, inter aha, Ecotvmudes ν Ihe Republic

(1972)3 Γ L R 506) The subject of \ested 40 rights and thecircumstances of their accrual weie also discussed 18 -Ϊ C.L.R. Alexandria and Others \. Republic Pikis.1. by the Full Bench ofthe Supreme Court in Republic v. Menelaou

(1982)3 C.L.R. 419. However, Ifail toseehow a question of vested rights canarise in this case. Ontheonehand, before the.enactment of Law 12/81, applicants had noright tobecome 5 teachers of secondary education. They became teachers of secondary education by their own, choice andin consequence thereof. That their former colleages nowenjoy a right tobe promoted to a position that carries a salary on Scale AllAssistant Elementary School Headmaster—is totally irrelevant. 10 Their joinder of secondary education wasin nowaydependent on the administration safeguarding equal opportunities foi promotion asthey might,atanyone time,enjoy in theelemental) education had they not resigned therefrom. Their emplacement was. inmyjudgment, properly made inaccordance with thelaw. 15 Equality, as· often repeated, is a relative concept designed to ensure equality among persons or things intrinsically equal. The. principle is so well settled that it-is unnecessary to refer to. any of the numerous decisions onthesubject. There were inherent differences between theapplicants and secondary school 20 teachers in possession of the diploma· oCthe-H.T.i. . Emplace­ ment of the-latter ona scale higher than that of the applicants was the.result of theapplication*of therelevant provisions of the·law.bearing on the.readjustment of their salary scaleand regrading in. the service. Thelegislature may legitimately tie 25 the grading of an officer to the possession o\' academic qualifica­ tions. as well as former service. There was nothing invidious to equality in choosing this course. The differentiation was in no way arbitrary. Hence complaints of inequality are. in my judgment, altogether ill-founded: 30 Lastly, there is no substance whatever in the complaint^ attributing to the.educational authorities badfaith. Certainly, they implemented, the collective agreement though it must be said, as stressed, in Paphitis.supra, that a collective agreement is notof itself a source of rights at public law. The decision 35 ordecisions complained of in these.proceedings were consonant with thelaw andwere theproduct of its application. In my judgment, the recourse is altogether ill-founded. It is dismissed. Let there be no order as to costs. Application 40 dis/m.wcd • '> ith no order a\ to c<oit\. 19