clr/1986/1986_3_1981.pdf

(2)—Ultra \ires enabling law —Anstides ν The Republic

(1986)? CLR 466 adopted The sub judice transfer of the applicant, a Secondaiv Education Schoolmistress, from Limassol f o Agro^, was icvoked following the decision in Anstides \ The Repu­ blic

(1986)3 C L R 466. whereby Regulations 20(c) and 23

(2)of the said Regulations weie declared invalid Thus the question arose whether this recourse has been abated Held annulling the sub \ud\ce decision

(1)A recourse has to be examined on its mer ts, if the revoked sub judice decision has brought about consequences, which, if the applicant is successful may enti.le him to redress undei Article 146 6 of the Constitution

(2)In this case buch consequences have been duced whilst the sub judice act was operative

(3)The sub judtce act was based 1981 pio- mainly on Reg 23 Neocteous v. The Republic (198Θ)

(2)of the said Regulations. This Court is in full agree­ ment with the decision in Aristides, supra that such re­ gulation is ultra vires the enabling law. Sub judice decision annulled. 5 No order as to costs. CUM referred to: Aristides v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 466; Kyriakides v. The Republic 1 R.S.C.C. 66; Malliotis v. The Municipality of Nicosia

(1965)3 C.L.R. 75; 10 Christodoulidesv. The Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R. 193; Hapeshis v. The Republic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 550; Kittou v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 605; Agrotis v. The Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1397; Kampis v. The Republic

(1984)1 C.L.R. 314; Anastassiades and Others v. The Republic

(1984)C.L.R. 312; 15 3 Kikas and Others v. The RepubUc

(1984)3 C.L.R. 852; Payiatas v. The Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1239; Salem v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 453; 20 Vakis v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 534; Philippides and Son v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 2588. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to 25 ransfer applicant from Limasso! (Fifth Gymnasium) to ^gros. A. S. Angelides, for the applicant. A, Vassiliades, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 30 1982 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Noecleous v. The Republic LORIS J. read the following judgment. The applicant in the present recourse, a Secondary Education School­ mistress, by means of the present recourse challenged the decision of the respondent Commission dated 9.8.85 whereby she was transferred from the town of Limassol (Fifth Gymnasium) to Agros. The present recourse which was filed on 29.8.85 was mainly bused on the legal ground that the sub judice decis;on was relying on Regulations 20(c) and 23

(2)of the Educational Officers (Teaching staff) (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) (Amendment) Regulations 1985 (Regulations 71/85), which allegedly were ultra vires the enabling enactment. During the pendency of this recourse the aforesaid _Regulations were on 12.3.86 declared ultra vires the en­ abling enactment by the learned President of th : s . Cour in the case of Aristides v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R 466; following the aforesaid judgment the responden Commission revoked the sub judice decision on 25.4.1986 The learned counsel for applicant argued that the ap plicant was entitled to judgment on the merits inspite ο the revocation in view of the allegation that the admini strative act in question has produced results, before ceasinj to be effective, detrimental to her for which she was en titled to compensation. It is well settled that despite the revocation of an ad ministrative act a recourse has to be examined on its me rits if the sub jud : ce decision revoked, has brought abou; 1 consequences in relation to which, if the applicant i successful in the recourse he might be entitled to redres· under Article 146.6 of the Constitution (Kyriakides ν Republic 1 R.S.C.C. 66, Malliotis v. The Municipalir of Nicosia

(1965)3 C.L.R. 75 at p. 94, Chriswdoulides v. Republic

(1978)3 C.L.R. 193. Hapeshis v. Republic

(1979)3 C.L.R. 550, Kittou v. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R 605, Agrotis v. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 1397, Kampi v. Republic

(1984)1 C.L.R. 314 (FB), Anastassiades << others v. Republic,

(1984)3 C.L.R. 312. Kikas an, Others v. Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 852, Payiatas v. R< 1983 Loria J. Neocleous v. The Republic

(1986)vublic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 1239 (FB), Salem v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 453, Vakis v. Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 534, Philippides & Son v. Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 2588). Having considered the matter I decided that the sub judice decision which was given on 9.8.85 and remained in 5 force up to 25.4.1986 produced results while operative, which might entitle the applicant to redress under Article 146.6 of the Constitution, if successful in the recourse under consideration. In the circumstances I have heard further argument on the merits of the recourse. 10 It is abundantly clear that the sub judice decision was based mainly on Regulation 23

(2)of the Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) (Amendment) Regulations 1985, which was declared ultra vires by the learned Presi- 15 dent of this Court in the case of Aristides v. The Republic (supra); I am in full agreement with the learned President that the aforesaid Regulation is ultra vires the enabling enactment and I adopt his reasoning in the aforesaid judgment to this end. 20 In the result the sub judice decision in this case is hereby declared null and devoid of any legal effect. In view of the fact that the sub judice decision was reached at on 9.8.85 and the aforesaid Regulations were declared ultra vires on 12.3.1986, I have decided to make 25 no order as to the costs of this case, as the respondent Commission had to apply the regulations in question when reaching at the sub judice decision. Sub judice decision annulled. No order as to costs. 1984 30