clr/1987/1987_3_229.pdf

(2)—The hstcompiled underreg5—Reg 10

(2)clearlysets ow rulesofpnonty—Respondents not entitled todisregardsuch rules 5 Notwithstandingthe factthat thename of the applicant wasplacedprior to the names of the interestedparties on the list of candidates,which had been prepared m accordance with reg 5 of the aforesaid regulations the respondentsappointedon contracttothe postofschool master ofChemiMn, the interestedparties As aresulttheapplicant filedthe presentrecourse 10 Held annulling the sub judice decision that reg 10

(2)of the said Regulations setsoutclearlytherulesofpnontyand asourcaselaw shou.s the respondent Commission was not entitledto disregardits provisions Subjudice decision annulled No orderas to costs 15 Casesreferred to Psara-Kronidou ν TheRepublic [\9$5) 3 C L R 1900 Kynahdouv TheEducational Service Commission

(1986)3 C L R 913 Koms and Others ν The Republic (19S6) 3 C L R 1874. Samsν TheEducational Service Commission

(1987)3 C L R 186 20 Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to appoint and/or for appointment on contract, to the post of School Master 229 Sarris v. Republic

(1987)of Chemistry intheSecondary Education theinterestedpartiesin preference and instead of theapplicant AS AngehdeswithL Sams,for the applicant R Petndou (Mrs),for the respondent Cur adv vult A LOIZOU J read the following judgment By the present recourse the applicant seeks (a)Declaration of the Courtthatthe actand/or decision of therespondent Commission by which they appointed and/or appointed on contract Athanasia Nicolaidou, Andrea Stavraki and Elisavet Tempnoti, to the post of School- 10 Master of Chemistry is nul1 and void and with nolegal effect (b) Declaration of the Court that the refusal and/or omission of the respondents to appoint the applicants to the post of SchoolMaster of Chemistry inspite of hispnontyonth2 listof candidates for appointment, isnull andvoid and with nolegal effect 15 The facts of the case are bnefly these The applicant graduated in 1973 from theMetsovio Polytechnicof Athens with adegree in Chemical Engineenng His name was placed on the List of Candidates for appointment as a School-Master of Chemistry, under senal No21 The said list of candidates was prepared by 20 virtue of theprovisions of Regulation 5of theEducational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters)Regulations 1972 as amended Under the provisions of Regulation 10

(2)thereof «appointments on contractare made in order of pnonty from therelevant listsof 25 persons tobe appointed» The three interested parties were likewise placed on the aforesaid listunder senal Nos 28 29 and 33 The respondent Commission by its decision of the 12th September, 1983, appointed on contractthesaid three interested 30 partiesfor ayear commencingthe1stSeptember. 1983 tothe 31st August, 1984, inpreference and instead of theapplicant who had obvious pnonty over them in accordance with the aforementioned Regulation Inthe case of Psara-Kronidou ν The Republic,

(1985)3 C LR 35 1900 it was held that the respondent Commission could not disregard the provisions of the aforementioned Regulation 10

(2), 230 5 3 C.L.R. Sarris v. Republic A. Loizou J. which for all intents and purposes at the time of taking the sub judice decision was in force. This pnnciple was followed in the cases of Loukia Kyriakidou v. The Educational Service Commission, Recourse No. 785/85 judgment delivered on the 5 4thJune. 1986*;KouisandOthersv.TheRepublic. RecourseNo 34/85, judgment delivered on the 25th September 1986.**and also in Georghios S. Sarris. v. The Educational Service Commission, Recourse No. 940/85. judgment delivered on the 27th January, 1987 - both judgments as yet unreported*** - where 10 extensivereference ismadetotherelevantCase LawofthisCourt Inall fairness, counsel for the respondent Commission has not advanced anyargument tothecontrary,inviewofthewellsettled by now, Case Law ofthisCourt on thispoint, above referred to Ifind noreasonwhatsoever todisagreewiththeapproach ofmv 15 learned Brethren in the recourses just referred to The said Regulation setsout very clearly the rules of priority which had to be observed inappointing on contract educational officers bythe respondent Commission, solongasthesaidRegulation wasinthe Statute book. 20 For all the above reasons, this recourse succeeds and the sub judice decision isdeclared null and void and with no legal effect whatsoever. Inthecircu·nstances.however,therewillbenoorderastocosts Subjudice decisionannulled No orderastocosts 25 *Reportedm

(1986)3CLR 913 " Reportedm

(1986)3CLR 1874 ***Reported,n

(1987)3CL R186 231