clr/1986/1986_3_1561.pdf

(2)The existence in virtue of the relevant law and regulations* of a procedural machinery for objection and re-examination of such rating does not change the chara- * Regulation 22 of the Educational Oificers {Inspection and Rating) Regulations 1976 made under s 76 of. the Public Educational Service Law 10/1969 1561 Kammitai v. Republic

(1986)cter of the rating that was made either before or after such machinery was invoked. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: · 5 Papacharalambous v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1042; Pavlides v. The Republic

(1977)3 C.L.R. 421; Tanis v. The Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R. 314; Decisions of the Greek Council of State Nos: 588(60 and 835/62. 10 Recourse. Recourse against the dismissal of applicant's objection aga : nst her rating and/or confidential report for the year 1982-1983. A. S. Angelides, for the applicant. 15 R. Vrahimi (Mrs.), for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. A. Loizou J. read the following judgment. By sent recourse the applicant seeks: (

1. a)the pre­ Declaration of the Court that the decision and/or act 20 of the respondents by which he dismissed the objection of the applicant and retained her rating and/or con­ fidential report for the year 1982-1983 at 36 ("Λίαν Ευδόκιμος") "Excellent", is null and void and with no legal effect whatsoever; 25 (
2. b)Declaration of the Court that the refusal and/or omission of the respondents to rate the applicant with a total rate above 36 and/or 37, is null and void and with no effect whatsoever and what was omitted ought to be done. The facts of the case are the following: The applicant a school-mistress of French in the Secondary Education, asked the respondent Director of Secondary Education to communicate to her her rating for the school years 19821983, 1983-1984, which the latter did by his letter of the 35 1562 M) 3 C.L.R. Kammitsi v. Republic A. Loizou J. 9th April 1984. (exhibit 2) in respect of the first year and which is as follows: 5 (
3. a)Professional training (
4. b)Sufficiency in work (
5. c)Organization-Admin:stration Public relations (
6. d)General conduct and action 8 9 9 10 (
7. e)Genera! assessment, Excellent 36 The applicant submitted a written objection for point (
8. c)10 (exhibit 3) of the rating and stated therein in detail the grounds for which she believed that the rating given to her on this po:nt was unjust. The Inspector-General of Secondary Education asked the team of inspectors which prepared the rating to submit their observations on the ob15 jection of the applicant.· On the 25th May, 1985, they met and examined the objection and they disagreed with the objection. Two of its members Messrs M. Matsis and M. Michaelides agreed to upgrade point (
9. c)from 9 to 10 and Mr. L. Kappas d:sagreed and considered the rating 20 given as correct (exhibit 5). The decision of this team was sent to the InspectorGeneral of Secondary Education who forwarded it to the Director of Secondary Education with the suggestion to upgrade point (
10. c)of the applicant from 9 to 10, exh:bit 6. 25 On the 31st May. 1985, the respondent Director decided that the applicant was correctly rated (exhib;t 7) and informed her accordingly by letter dated the 31st Mav, 1985, (exhibit 8). As against this decision the applicant filed the present 30 recourse. The respondents in their opposit'on raise the objection that the sub judice decision could not be the subject of a recourse under Artxle 146 of the Constitution as it is not an executory administrative act. I do not intend to refer to the relevant legislation and the Regulations 35 made thereunder that govern the question of conf'dential reports, renamed by the amending Law No. 53/79, into "Service Reports," as the matter has been dealt with recently by Stylianides J., in his judgment del'vered on 10th May, 1986 (as yet unreported) in Petros Papachamlambous 40 v. The Republic Recourse No. 541/85*. It is sufficient to * Reported in

(1986)3 C.L.R. 1042. 1563 V. Loizou J. Kammitsi v. Republic

(1986)efer only to the provisions of Regulation 22 of the Edu:ational Officers (Inspection and Rating) Regulations 1976 nade under Section 76 of 'he Public Educational Service •^aw 1969, (Law No. 10 of 1969). Under the said Regulaion a school teacher is entitled to apply in writing within 5 fifteen days from the communication to him of the rating jf the items and the general rating to the Inspector-General for the deletion or amendment of the part of the report communicated to him or the review of the rating so com­ municated. Provision is made in Regulation 22 about the 10 >rocedure to be followed by the Inspector-General on re­ ceipt of such application and the applicant educational >fficer is informed in writing of the result of his such objection. In the case of Papacharalambous (supra) after a review 15 if the authorities on the question of the nature of a service )r confidential report, Stylianides, J., held that the sub udice decision in that case, which was not in any way diferent from the decision challenged by the present recourse, .vas not i»n executory act but merely a preparatory or ad- 20 /isory one and could not be the subject of a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution. He referred, inter alia, to 'he case of lacovos Pavlides v. The Republic

(1977)3 C.L.R. 421 in which Malachtos J., held that the "grading md or the table of inspection and or general assessment" 25 }f the applicant in that case a school teacher of Philology η the secondary education for the school year 1972-1973, •vas not an executory act which produced direct legal con>equences but a preparatory act and as such could not be nade the subiect of a recourse under Article 146 of the 30 Constitution. Reference was also made to the case of Tanis J. The Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R. 314 in which I, likewise, ield that the rating of a public officer and the general issessment of his work contained in a confidential report >rdinary or special and the outcome of inspection or spe- 35 ;ial inspection made by virtue of the Educational Off;cers Inspection and Rating) Regulations 1976, and the Public Educational Service Law 1969 are preparatory acts to the compilation of the lists of those suitable for promotion and 1564 3 C.L.R. 5 Kammitsi v. Republic A. Lolzou J. to the actual acts or decisions of promotion and as such they produce no direct legal consequences and cannot be the subject of a recourse under Article 146 of the Constitution. Pavlides v. The Republic (supra) was followed, and reference was also made to the decisions of the Greek Council of State Nos. 588/60 and 835/62. It should be stressed here that the fact that a machinery for a procedure for objection to and re-examination of the ratings is prescribed by the relevant law and regulations 10 does not change the character of the act or rating whether that was made originally or after the said procedure was invoked. It merely affords a machinery for re-examination of the merits of the rating, something which normally is outside the ambit of the annulling Court. 15 In the light of all the above and being in complete agreement with the reasoning in Papacharalambous case, I have come to the conclusion that the objection raised on behalf of the respondent succeeds and the present recourse is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order 20 as to costs. Recourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 1565