(1987)1987October30 ILORIS J ] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION 1 STELIOS STYL1ANOU, 2 KYRIACOS MATSENTIDES Applicants, ν THE EDUCATIONALSERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent (Case No 967/85) Administrative Law — General pnnciples — Subsidiary legislation— Once enacted by the competent organ, ithas tobe compliedwith, untilrepealedor declaredby ajudicialdecision to be ultra vires the law AdministrativeLaw — Generalpnnciples — Legalityof an administrative act — Governed by the legislationmforceat the timeitwas made 5 By means of this recourse the applicants challenged the appointmenton contract for the penod of 19 85-30 1185 of the interested parties as Schoolmasters of Gymnastics The sub judice appointments were made in contravention of the list of pnonties, compiled in virtue of Reg 5 of the EducationalOfficers (Teaching 10 Staff) (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotionsand Related Matters) Regulations, 1972, as amended in 1974 The relevant decision was taken before thedecision inSawa ν Republic{1986)3C LR 445,whereby Regs 5 and 10 of such regulations were declared ultravirestheenabling law Held, annulling the sub judice decision that regulations made by the competentorgan have tobecomplied withuntilrecalled by theorgan itselfor declared ultra viresby ajudicial decision, as thelegality of an administrative act is governed by the legislation in force at the time it was made,the ->ubjudice decision muft be annulled Sub judicedecisionannulled Ho orderas tocosts 1292 15 20 3C.L.R. Styllanou and Anotherv. Republic CasesreferredtoKtssonerghis v.E.S C
(1987)3C.L R. 312. Sawa v.Republic
(1986)3 C.L R. 445. Kapsouν Republic
(1983)3 C L.R 1336; 5 Lordouand Others v.Republic
(1968)3 C LR. 427. Kynahdou ν Republic
(1986)3 CL.R. 913 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent toappointthe interested parties to the post of Schoolmaster of Gymnastics in 10 preference and instead of theapplicants. P.Angelides, for applicants. R. Vrahimi-Petrides (Mrs.), for respondent. E.Efstathiou, for interested party No.
- S. Mamantopouhs, for interested party No.
- jc Cur. adv. vult. LORISJ. readthefollowing judgment. Bothapplicants impugn by means of thepresent recourse thedecision of theRespondent Commission published inthe daily press on 1.9.85,whereby the seventeen interested parties, set out in the Appendix attachedto 20 the recourse, were appointed on contract to the post of Schoolmaster of Gymnastics in preference to and instead of the applicants, for a period of three months i.e. from 1.9.198530.11.
- Both applicants duly qualified Schoolmasters of Gymnastics 25 were emplaced on the table of priorities prepared by the Ministry of Education pursuant to regulation 5 of the Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations 1972 as amended on 209.74 (Κ.Δ.Π. 250/74) inapriorserial order tothatof the 17 interested 30 parties inthepresent recourse. Thecomplaintoftheapplicantsistotheeffect thattheinterested parties aforesaid '/ere appointed on a contractual basis as Schoolmasters of Gymnastics by the respondent for a period of three months i.e. 1.9.85-30.11.85 in breach of the right of the 35 applicants to prior appointment safeguarded by the table of priorities as aforesaid. 1293 LorisJ. Styllanou andAnotherv.Republic
(1987)The present recourse was opposed by the Respondent Commission; all the interested parties, with the exception of interested party No. 12namely Eleftheria HjiStefanou, were duly served;fourteen of themdidnotappearwhilstinterestedparties4 and 15 appeared through counsel and opposed the present recourse. 5 As interested party No. 12 was not served as late as the 10th September 1986, recourse against her was withdrawn and dismissed on 10.9.86. At the hearing of this case learned counsel appearing for the respondent conceded that the sub-judice decision was wrong in principle asthe priority tables,whichwereinforce atthetimethe sub-judice decision was reached, were not followed. Counsel cited the case of Kissonerghisv. E.S.C. decided bythis Court on 30.3.87 (CaseNo.903/85 -judgmentdelivered on30.3.87*-still unreported) and invitedthe Courtonthesameprinciplestoannul thesub-judicedecisioninthiscaseaswell,statingatthesametime, that in this case, the departure of the Respondent Commission from the order of priorities wasnot due tothe recommendations of theMinistryof Education. Counsel appearing for the interested parties No. 4 and 15, adopted the stand taken by learned counsel appearing for the respondent and conceded that inview of the fac*thatthe priority tables, which were in force atthe time of the sub-judice decision wasreached bytherespondent, werenotfollowed and inviewof 25 the decision in Kissonerghiscase (supra) the sub-judice decision could not stand. Itisabundantly clear that the sub-judice decision was reached on 1.9.85 when the aforesaid regulations fixing the order of prioritieswerestillinforce; thecaseofSawa v.Republic
(1986)3 30 C.L.R.445wherebyregulations5and 10weredeclaredultravires the enabling enactment (Law 10/69) was decided subsequently i.e.on8.3.86; andastheregulationsinquestionweremadebythe competent organ they had to be complied with until recalled by the organ itself, or declared ultra vires by a judicial decision 35 (Kapsou v.Republic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1336). *Reportedin
(1987)3C.L.R.312. 1294 10 15 20 3C.L.R. Styllanou andAnotherv.Republic Loris J. Once theaforesaid regulationswere in force atthe time of the sub-judice decision, they constituted the law applicable to this case as the legality of administrative acts is governed by the legislation in force atthe timethey were made (Lordou&Others 5 v.Republic
(1968)3 C.L.R.427, Kynakidou v.Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R.913). Therefore the sub-judice decision has to be annulled on the groundthattherespondentdidnotfollow therelevantregulations which were valid and in force at the time such decision was 10 reached bythe respondent Commission. In the result the sub-judice decisions is hereby annulled in respectofalltheinterestedpartieswiththeexceptionofinterested party No. 12 namely Eleftheria HjiStefanou, against whom the presentrecoursewaswithdrawn anddismissedasstatedearlieron 15 inthepresent judgment. Letthere be no orderastocosts. Sub judice decision annulled.No order astocosts. 1295