← Κύπρος

clr/1987/1987_3_1946.pdf

(1987)1987December 12 [A LOIZOU J) INTHE MATTEROFARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION SAWASCONSTANTINOU Applicant, ν THE REPUBLICOF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE EDUCATIONALSERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent (Case No 466/86) Administrative act — Validity of — Should be determined on basis of the records which were before the administration and were brought beforethe Court and nothing else The respondent Commission rejected applicant's application for appointment in the Public Educational Service on the ground that the applicant did not possess the qualifications required for the post of teacher (Para 3(i) of the relevant scheme of service) Hence this recourse 5 One of the complaints of the applicant is that the Commission failed to consider his eligibility under para3(u)of the scheme of service for the post of teacher special training 1" It must be noted that the applicant himself, in completing the form, specifiedthe post he was interestedas«teacher»,whilst in earlier applications he specifiedthe posthe was theninterestedas«teacher special training» Held, dismissing the recourse
(1)For the purposes of decidingthe validity of the sub judice decision this Court can only rely on the relevant records 1 5 which were beforetherespondentCommission andhavebeenplacedbefore the Court and nothing else
(2)In the circumstances it was reasonably open to the respondent Commission to treat the application of the applicant asone for appointment to the post of Elementary School Teacher asprovided by the saidparagraph 30) 1946 20 3 C.L.R. Constantinou v. Republic {'Λ) llisundisputed thaitheapplicantwas notqualified underparagraph3(i) Recoursedismissed No orderas tocosts. Recourse. 5 Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to appoint applicant in the public educational service of the Republic. A. S. Angelides. for theapplicant. R. Vrahimi — Petridou (Mrs), for therespondent. Cur. adv. vult. 10 A LOIZOU J. read the following judgment. The applicant graduated from the Paedagogic Academy of Lamia (Greece)in
  1. In1982-1984heattendedtheMaraslioSchool for Teachers of Elementary Education and was awarded a post-graduate Diploma inSpecial Training.Whilstbeing employed inGreece as 15 an Elementary School-Teacher, he sought, by means of an application to the respondent Commission, to be appointed in Cyprus. This application was rejected and he was informed accordingly by meansofaletterdatedthe 17thApril
  2. Hence the present recourse, whereby he prays for: 20 «A Declaration that the decision of the respondent Commission not to entertain the applicant's application for appointment in the Public Educational Service is illegal unconstitutional null andvoid and with nolegal effect.» The sub judice decision was taken on the 15th April
  3. It 25 reads: «The Commission continues (see minutes of 5.3.86) with the consideration of applications which have been submitted for appointmentinthe Public Educational Service. 30 The Commission having taken into consideration all the materia)anddocumentswhichwere placed before itaswellas the relevant provisions of the Law and of the Scheme of Service decides thattheapplications of thefollowing persons cannotbe entertainedfor thereasons mentionedinrespectof each one of them. 35 1947 A.Loixoo«f. ConsUnttnouv.Republic
(1987)(e)Constantinou Sawas (42/D/7213). Submitsapplication forappointment tothepost ofTeacher. Hisapplicationcannotbeacceptedashedoesnotpossessthe qualificationsrequiredbytheSchemesofServiceforthispost and in particular a Teacher's diploma of the Paedagogic 5 Academy of Cyprus or other equivalent Paedagogic Academy/orTeacher'sSchoolofathreeyearsattendanceor a diploma of PaedagogicAcademy/Teacher's School oftwo yearsattendanceandaCertificateofadditionalattendanceof at least one academic year at the Paedagogic Academy of JQ Cyprus.» Under the relevant Scheme of Service the qualifications requiredforthepostofTeacherare: «1 3. (i)Inrespect ofElementarySchoolsTeacher's Diploma of the Paedagogic Academy of Cyprus or of another equivalentPaedagogicAcademy/Teacher'sSchoolofatleast threeyearsattendance. (ii)InrespectofSpecialSchools 20 Teacher'sDiplomaofthePaedagogicAcademyofCyprus or of another equivalent Paedagogic Academy/Teacher's School of at least three years attendance or a diploma ofa SpecialSchoolofatleastthreeyearsattendanceinsubjectsof special training or a diploma of a Paedagogic Academy/ 25 Teacher's School of at least two years attendance and a certificate of at least one year's specialization in subjectsof specialtraining.» Learned counsel for the applicant in his written address contended (
  1. a)That the applicant possessed the qualifications required under the Schemes of Service because he possesses qualifications, under 1,2,and3(ii). (
  2. b)That the respondent Commission never considered paragraph 3(
  3. ii)of the qualifications required. Itconsidered only paragraph3(i)and decided that it could rejected the applicant's claim. 1948 30 3C.L.R. Constantinouv.Republic A.LobouJ. (
  4. c)That the respondent Commission did not inquire into and did not apply in the case of the applicant the qualifications provided by the Scheme of Service. Further learned counsel submitted that the applicant's 5 application was rejected because as he gathers the respondent Commission had in mind thatthe applicant has since 1985 been included inthelistof those tobe appointed tothe post of Teacher for Special Training. Itshould be noted thattheapplicant's application isdated 23rd 10 January 1986, and he used the prescribed for the purpose applicationform,(E.E.Y.I).Paragraph 1,of theapplication reads: 15 «1. Post for which thisapplication is submitted. (Thespecialization should be mentioned) (Να αναφέρεται η ειδικότητα.) Teacher (Δάσκαλος).» It should also be noted that in an application on the same application form which the applicant submitted on the 10th July 1984, the said paragraph 1, thereof was completed by him as follows: 20 «Teacher-Special Training. (ΔάσκαλοςΕιδικής Αγωγής).» It is clear from the relevant minutes of the respondent Commission, and the other documents, and for the purposes of deciding thevalidityof thesubjudice decision Icanonly goby the relevant records which were before the respondent Commission 25 and have been placed before me and nothingelser.«>*4hai the applicant's application was rightly treated as an application for appointment to the post of Teacher (Δάσκαλος), as provided in paragraph 3(
  5. i)of the Scheme of Service. Itisalso clear thatinthe relevant Scheme of Service this post is named «Teacher 30 (Δάσκαλος)» and by virtue of paragraph 3(
  6. i)of the Scheme of Service we have thepost ofTeacher of «Elementary Schools» and by virtue of paragraph 3(
  7. ii)we have the post of Teacher for the Special Schools, needless to say that the applicant does not possessthe qualifications provided by paragraph 3(i),andthatthe 35 application Form — paragraph 1 — requires an applicant for a particular post to mention the,specialization (ειδικότητα), for whuh he applies. 1949 A. LolzouJ. Constantinou v.Republic
(1987)These pointscame ^o^uusly tut.ieattention oftheapplicantas in compliance with the said requirements inhisapplication of the 10th July 1984 he applied for appointment to the po't of «Teacher Special Subjects» and in his application of the 23rd January 1986, he applied for appointment to the post of «Teacher» 5 The question therefore arises whether the respondent Commission was entitled on the material before it to reach the conclusion that it did namely to treat the application of the applicant asanapplication forappointment tothepost ofTeacher ^Q as provided in paragraph 3(i)of the Scheme 1 e for Elementary Srhools Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and in particular tothe relevantScheme ofServiceandtheapplicationof the applicant, particularly paragraph 1 thereof, duly filled in his 15 own hand-writing together with his previous application, Ihave come to the conclusion that it was reasonably open to the respondent Commission totreattheapplication oftheapplicant as one for appointment tothe post of ElementarySchool Teacher as provided by the said paragraph 3(i) 20 In view of this conclusion the respondent Commission was under no duty to consider whether theapplicant wasqualified by virtue of paragraph 3(n),sincehe himself applied for appointment tothepostprovided byparagraph 3(i),and itisundisputed thatthe applicant was not qualified under paragraph 3(0 Consequently 25 the subjudice decision cannot be annulled onany of the grounds relied upon and theapplicant's recourse musttherefore fail,andis hereby dismissed, but mthe circumstances there willbe no order asto costs Recourse dismissed No orderasto costs 1950 30

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.