clr/1987/1987_3_253.pdf

(1987)regulation, but only followed it to a certain extent If the respondent had stnctly complied with thelist, theapplicantwould nothave beenappointed Held,annullingthe subjudice decision

(1)Oncelegislation of a delegated nature was made by thecompetentorgan, ithas tobe complied with untilit is repealed or until itisfound tobe ultraviresby ajudicial decision Regulabons 5 and 10 of the said Regulations and theAppendix theretohave been found to be ultraviresthe law in Sawa ν TheRepublic

(1986)3CLR 445, that isafter thesubjudice decision was taken Itfollows that,atthematenal time,therespondenthadtoapply theRegulations 5

(2)Hadtherespondentfollowed thelistofpnonty,theapplicantwould not 1 0 have been appointed and,therefore,, would not have been benefited by its strictapplicationand would, as aresult, notpossess anylegitimate interestto challenge thesubjudice decision onthatground Once, however, therespon­ dent did not strictly adhere to the pnonty list and proceeded to select for appointment thoseserving intheprevious year on thebasis of theirpnonty 1 5 mthelistandtheapplicantseeks theannulmentof thesubjudice decisionon theground,also,thatthedecisionwas based oninvalid regulations,thisCourt came tothe conclusion thattheapplicanthas a legitimate interest to pursue thisrecourse totheend

(3)Regulations 5 and 10 andtheappendix theretoof theaforesaid regulaoonsare invalid as being ultravirestheenabling law (Sawa ν TheRepublic. supra adopted) 20

(4)In taking the sub judice decision the respondent relied, though not absolutely, onthepnontylistcompiledinvirtueof thesaid invalid regulations andsuchlisthasinfactaffected itsdecision Oncesuchdecisionwas based on 2 5 material,which isultravirestheLaw, itisdefective andhastobe annulled Subjudicedecision annulled No orderas tocosts Cases referred to Sawa ν TheRepublic

(1986)3 C LR 445, Kapsouv The Republic

(1983)3 CLR 1336, Psara-Kronidou ν The Republic

(1985)3 CLR 1900, Kouisand Othersν The Republic

(1986)3 CLR 1874, Saris ν 77)e/fopuW/c(1987>3C.L,R. 186 254 ^0 3 CLR. Ella v. Republic Recourse. Recourse against the omission of the respondent to appoint applicant on contract as a teacher of English and against the appointmentoftheinterested partiesasteachersof English tothe 5 exclusion and/orinsteadof theapplicant. A.S. Angelides, fortheapplicant. M. FJorentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic,for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 10 SAWIDES J. read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicant by thepresentrecoursepraysforadeclarationthatheomissionofthe respondenttoappointheroncontractfor theschoolyear 1983 — 1984 as a teacherof English, aswellas theappointmentsof the interestedpartieswhosenamesappear intheattachedlistastea15 chers of English, made on the 12th September, 1983 to the exclusion and/orinstead of theapplicantshouldbe declarednull andvoid. Theapplicanthasa B.A. Honoursdegree inEnglish andLatin literature and was first appointed on contract as a teacher of 20 English onthe23rd September, 1976. Hercontractwas renewed everyyearuntilthe31st August, 1983.Onthe 12th September, 1983therespondentdecidedtoappoint,again,oncontract,those educationalists who were serving so during the previous year. Theminutesof themeetingof therespondentCommission read, 25 inthisrespect,asfollows: «Η Επιτροπή έχονταςυπόψη: (α) Τις διατάξεις του νόμου, των κανονισμών και των σχεδίων υπηρεσίας, 30 (β)ΤηναπόφασητουΑνωτάτουΔικαστηρίουστηνέφεση, μεαρ.293, (γ)Τοέγγραφο του ΓενικούΔιευθυντήτου Υπουργείου Παιδείας,μεαρ. 197/62/2καιημερ.9/9/83,

(6)Το έγγραφο τουΔιευθυντή Μέσης Εκπαίδευσης με 255 SavvldesJ. Ella v. Republic

(1987)ημερ. 31/8/83 σχετικά με τ α πλεονάσματα και ελλείμ­ ματα που υπάρχουν στα σχολεία, και α φ ο ύ μελέτησε τους φακέλλουςτων υποψηφίων για διορισμό καταλήγειστα εξής συμπεράσματα:

(1)Οι υπηρετήσαντες με σύμβαση κατά τ ο 1981/82 5 καθηγητές είναι οι μόνοι αιτητές οι οποίοι καλύπτουν τις πρόνοιες των σχεδίων υπηρεσίας σύμφωνα με τ η Μεταβατική διάταξη Ι των Σχεδίων αυτών. Η εκ των υστέρων αναστολή της υποχρεώσεως για 'παιδαγω­ γική κατάρτιση'μεαπόφαση τ ο υ Υπουργικού Συμβου- 10 λίου δίδει δικαίωμα διορισμού και στους υπόλοιπους αιτητές (που δεν έχουν παιδαγωγική κατάρτιση)αλλάη Επιτροπή πιστεύει ότιη αναστολή δεν εξουδετερώνει τ ο γεγονός ότι όσοι υπηρετούσαν τ ο 81/82 υπερέχουν ως προς τ α προσόντα από τους υπόλοιπους. 15

(2)Οι καθηγητέςοι οποίοι αναφέρονται πιο κάτω και π ο υ διορίστηκαν με σύμβαση κατά τ α προηγούμενα σχολικά έτη, διορίστηκαν νόμιμα και κανονικά με βάση τ η σειρά τους στον οικείοπίνακα διοριστέων. Ο ι αιτητές οι οποίοι τ ώ ρ α προηγούνται στο νέο κατάλογο: 20 (ι) είτε συμπεριλήφθηκαν γιαπρώτη φ ο ρ ά στον πίνακα τ ο υ Ιουλίου 1983, λόγω τ ο υ ότι δεν είχαν υποβάλει προηγουμένως αίτηση και απόκτησαν την προτεραιό­ τ η τ α τους αποκλειστικά λόγω αρχαιότητας, (ιι) είτε προηγήθηκαν στον πίνακα τ ο υ 1983λόγω απο- 25 κτήσεως προσθέτων προσόντων ή/και άλλων συμπλη­ ρωματικών στοιχείων τ α οποία για πρώτη φ ο ρ ά υπε­ βλήθησαν, ή/και λόγω προϋπηρεσίας στοεξωτερικό, (ιιι) είτε δεν είχαν ενδιαφερτεί για διορισμό στα προη­ γούμενα σχολικά έ τ η , είτε τους προσφέρθηκε διορι- 30 σμός και δεν τον αποδέκτηκαν, είτε είχαν αποδεχτεί, διορισμό αλλάδιέκοψαν την σύμβαση τους αργότερα.

(3)Οι καθηγητέςπ ο υ υπηρετούσαν κ α τ ά τ α προηγού­ μενα σχολικά έτη μεσύμβαση αναμφιβόλωςέχουν απο­ κτήσει εκπαιδευτική πείρα σε σχολεία τ η ς Κύπρου και 35 256 3 C.L.R. Ella v. Republic SawldesJ. έχουν προσαρμοστεί στις ειδικές τοπικές συνθήκες των σχολείων μας και κ α τ ά συνέπεια η Επιτροπή κρίνει ότι αυτοί οι υποψήφιοι υπερέχουν των υπολοίπων σε α υ τ ό τον τομέα. 5 10 15 20 25

(4)Η Επιτροπή επίσης διαπιστώνει ότι τυχόν τήρηση της αυστηρής σειράς προτεραιότητας τ ο υ νέου κατα­ λόγου διοριοτέων παραβιάζει τη συνταγματικά κατο­ χυρωμένη αρχή της ισότητας και θα ήταν άδικη για όσους από τους παλαιότερα διορισμένους θα έμεναν αδιόριστοι γιατί με βάση τ η διαμορφωθείσα από χρό­ νια τ α κ τ ι κ ή ,ο επί συμβάσει διοριζόμενος είχετην πίστη ότι αποκτούσε μόνιμη θέση και οτρόπος τ ο υ διορισμού τ ο υ ήταν απλώς τυπική διαδικασία δηλαδή θεωρούσε τον εαυτότ ο υ Όιωνεί μόνιμο' και μεβάση α υ τ ότ οδεδομένο δημιούργησε υποχρεώσεις (οικογενειακές, κοινω­ νικές, οικονομικές) και σε πολλές περιπτώσεις εγκατέ­ λειψε προηγούμενη απασχόληση τ ο υ .

(5)Οι εκπαιδευτικοί αυτοί νόμιμα και κανονικά είχαν διοριστεί, (οι πλείστοι επί σειρά ετών) και ο μη διορισμός τους θα αντιστρατεύετο την ισχύουσα εργατική νομοθεσία και πολιτική. Με 6άση τ α πιο πάνω η Επιτροπή αποφασίζει να προσφέρει στους καθηγητές και εκπαιδευτές που φαί­ νονται στο συνημμένο κατάλογο διορισμό με σύμβαση από 1.9.83 μέχρι 31.8.84.» The Commission bearing in mindla) The provisionsof the law, the regulationsand the schemes of service, (

1. b)The decision of the Supreme Court in Appeal No. 293, 30 (
2. c)The document of the Director-General of the Ministry of Education, No. 197/62/2 dated 9.9.83, (
3. d)The document of the Director of Secondary Education dated 31.8.83 in respect of surpluses and shortages in schools, and 35 (
4. e)After having studied the files of the candidates for 257 SawldesJ. Ella v. Republic

(1987)appointment arrivedatthefollowingconclusions: (l)Those teacherswhohadservedon contractduring1981/ 1982aretheonlyapplicantswhosatisfy theprovisionsof the schemes of service in accordance with Transitory provision IofsuchSchemes.Thesubsequent suspension 5 of the requirement for ^paeclagogica) qualification' by a decision of the Council of Ministers gives a right of appointment totheothercandidatesaswell,(whodonot possesspaedagogical qualifications), buttheCommission believes that the suspension does not extinguish the fact 10 that those who were serving in81/82 are superior, with regardtoqualifications,totheothers.

(2)The teachers mentioned hereunder and who were appointed on contract during the previous school years, wereappointed lawfully andregularlyonthebasisoftheir 15 priorityonthelistofappointees.Theapplicantswhohave nowpriorityonthenewlist: (i)were either included for the first time in the list of July, 1983, for the reason that they did not submit an application before and obtained their priority only 20 becauseofseniority, (ii) or obtained priority on the list of 1983 because they acquired additional qualifications and/or onthebasisof other supplementary material which was submitted for thefirsttimeand/orbecauseofpreviousserviceabroad, 25 (iii) or were not interested for appointment during the previous years, or appointment was offered to them whichtheydidnotaccept,orhadacceptedappointment butinterrupted theircontractlater.

(3)Theteacherswhowereduringthepreviousschoolyearon contract undoubtedly acquired educational experiencein ** schools of Cyprus and have adapted themselves to the special conditions of our schools and as a result the Commissionfindsthatthesecandidatesaresuperiortothe restinthisaspect.

(4)TheCommissionalsofindsthatthepossibleobservance 35 of the strict order of priority of the new list of appointees 258 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Ella v. Republic Savvldes J . contravenes the constitutionally protected principle of equality and would have been unjust for those previously appointed who would remain unappointed because on the basis of the>J3ractice established since some years, a person contractually appointed had the expectation that he would acquireapermanentpostandthatmannerofhisappointment was only a formal procedure, that is, he considered himself somehow permanent and onthebasisofsuch fact he created responsibilities, (family,social,financial)andinmanycaseshe hasgiven up hisprevious employment.

(5)Theseeducationalistshadbeen appointed normally and lawfully (most of them for a number of years)and their non appointment wouldbecontrarytotheexistinglabourlawand policy. 15 Onthebasisoftheabove the Commission decidesto offer contractual ;appointment to the teachers and instructors appearing on the attached list,from 1.9.83till31.8.84»). The applicant was not appointed by the said decision and she wrote a letter, through her counsel, to the respondent, claiming 20 that she should have been appointed also. The respondent by letter dated 7.11.83 replied that the decision not to appoint her wasduetothefact thattherewasnomaterialprovingthather first appointmentoncontractwhichwaseffected in1976wasproperly effected on the basis ofher priority on the listof appointees.Asa 25 result,theapplicant filed the present recourse. Counsel for applicant argued by his written address that the decision of the respondent to appoint all those educationalists serving during the previous year except the applicant is unlawful and that the order of priority on the lists of candidates for 30 appointment, asprovided by Regulation 10

(2)ofthe Regulations wasnotstrictlyfollowed and thisisobvious from paragraph

(4)of thesaid decision. Healsoarguedthatthe criteriaset down by the respondent initsdecision applied alsoto the applicant and there is no substance in the reasons for the non - appointment of the 35 applicant contained in the letter of the respondent dated 7.11.1983,whicharemerelyanafterthought andtheresultoflack of a due inquiry intothe matter. 259 SavvldesJ. Ella v. Republic

(1987)Counselfortherespondentargued thataccordingtothecriteria set down by the respondent in its decision it was a basic prerequisite for the re-appointment of those serving during the previous year that their first, appointment should have been properly effected in accordance with their priority on the list of 5 appointees, and that theapplicant didnot satisfy thiscondition in 1976, when she was first appointed. Counsel alsosubmitted that even if the order of priority on the new list was followed, the applicant would not have been appointed, since only 21 educationalistswere appointed andthelastonesoappointed was 10 No. 44 on the list, whilst the applicant's serial number was

1. Counsel lastlysubmittedthatthesubjudicedecisionshouldnotbe setaside ifitcan besupported onanyotherlegalreasoningandin thecircumstancestheapplicantwasnot,inanycase,entitledtobe appointed. Itiscommongroundthattheorderofpriorityoftheapplicanton the list of 1983 is
2. In the facts set out in support of the opposition counsel for therespondent inaccuratelystatedthatthe lasteducationalist appointed oncontractforthesubject ofEnglish in 1983 had as serial number
3. Counsel for the applicant 20 obviously based hisaddresson that assumption. Itwas, however, later stated by counsel for the respondent, in hiswritten address thatthesaidnumberwaswrongandthatthecoreectnumberofthe lasteducationalist soappointed was44.Asaresult,Iconsideredit necessary to re-open the case and ask for the production of the 25 lists of appointees of 1983 and of those appointed by the sub judicedecision.Ialsorequested counselfortheapplicantto clarify whether he intended to challengetheappointment ofany" of the 21 educationalists appointed bythesubjudicedecision, inwhich case he had tojointhem asinterested partiesand servethemwith 30 the application. In the meantime the judgment in the case of Sawa v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 445, was delivered, by which Regulations5 and 10oftheEducational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Related 35 Matters)Regulationsof 1972weredeclaredultraviresandvoidfor unreasonablenessandthelistsofappointeespreparedthereunder asinvalid. 260 15 3 C.L.R. Ella v. Republic SavvldesJ. Inhissupplementary address, counsel fortheapplicant argued that the respondent could not ignore the order of priority of candidatesforappointmentasappearingonthelistofappointees. He also argued that it is obvious from para 2 of the sub judice 5 decision thatthe respondent hasappointed those whohad been appointed inthepastonthe basisoftheirpriorityonthe listatthe time oftheir appointment and the decisionsmust,inthat respect, be annulled on the ground of the invalidity of the Regulations. Counsel further added thattherespondent byitsletterof7.11.83, 10 seeks to relyon the order of priority on the listwhich, inthe light of the decision in the Sawa case (supra), must be declared ultra viresthe Law. Counselforapplicantfurtherstatedthatitwasnecessarythatthe interested parties should be notified, as their appointment on 15 contract isbeing challenged. Asa result, noticeswere issued and senton 14oftheinterestedpartieswhosenamesappearinthelist annexed to_the judgment. Service on the remaining 7 was not effected and to avoid further delay in these proceedings counsel forapplicantwithdrewapplicant'srecourseagainstsuch7parties. 20 Counsel for the respondent repeated, in his supplementary address,thattheapplicantwasnotinanywayaffected bythenonobservance of the priority on the listof appointees inviewof her serial number. Itis obvious from the sub judice decision that the respondent 25 although it adopted, to a certain extent, the priority list of candidates for appointment, it did not strictly adhere to such priority on the ground that strict adherence would have led to injustice. As it emanates from our case law, the respondent Commission had to apply the Regulations which are in effect 30 legislation of a delegated nature and follow the priority list. In Kapsou v.Republic

(1983)3C.L.R.1336,atpp. 1340-1341,we readthefollowingIn thejudgmentofTriantafyllides, P.: 35 «Before proceeding any further in thisjudgment Iwould like to observe that I am inclined to the view that the respondent Commission couldnot even onadvicefromthe Attorney-General, disregard asinvalidthe above referredto regulations

(4),

(7)andtheprovisotoregulation

(6)whichare, 261 SawidesJ . Ella v. Republic

(1987)in effect, legislation of a delegated nature enacted under section36ofLaw33/67.Oncesuchlegislation was madeby the competent organ, in this instance by the Councilof Ministers,such legislation hasto becomplied with untilitis repealed bytheCouncilofMinisters(inviewoftheadviceof 5 the Attorney-General orfor anyother reason) oruntil it is found tobe ultra vires by a judicial decision (see,inthis respect, inter alia, Tsoutsos on The Administration and the Law ('Τσούτσου, Διοίκησις και Δίκαιον'),

(1979)pp. 41, 88, 89, 99, 116, Manual of Administrative Law by 10 Spiliotopoulos ('Σπηλιωτοπούλου, Εγχειρίδιον Διοικητικού Δικαίου'),

(1977), p. 79 et seq., and Delikostopoulos on Administrative Law ('Δεληκωοτοπούλου, Διοικητικόν Δίκαιο'»), vol. A,

(1972).p.47et.seq.). 15 Theabove opinionwasadoptedbyLorisJ.inthecaseofPsaraKronidou v.Republic

(1985)3C.L.R. 1900 at1903.1 also have adopted such view inthe case of Kouis andothers v. Republic (Cases Nos34/85 etc.in which judgment was delivered on 25.9.1986)*, andalso Sams v.Republic (Case No.940/85 'in 20 whichjudgmentwas delivered onthe27thJanuary, 1987).** Inthelightoftheabove,althoughitwastherespondent'sduty toapplytheregulationsandfollowthepriorityonthelist, hadthe respondent followed such list, the applicant was far away in priority tothose appointed andtherefore, shewould not have 25 beenbenefited fromtheapplicationoftheregulationsandwould, as a result, not possess anylegitimate interest tohave the sub jujdice decision annulled onthat ground. Once, however,the respondent did not strictly adhere to the regulations and proceededtoselectforappointmentthosewhowereappointedin 30 theprevious yearsonthebasisoftheirpriorityonthelistandthe applicantseeks theannulmentofthesub judice decision onthe ground also that thedecision of the respondentwasbasedon regulationswhichwereinvalid,Ihavecometotheconclusionthat shehasalegitimate interesttopursuethisrecoursetotheend. 35 Thevalidity oftheregulationscameupforconsiderationbefore thecourtinthecaseofSawa v.TheRepublic

(1986)3CLR. 445 inwhichTriantafyihdes P.inhisjudgmentatpp.448 - 449,had ftcportcdtn

(1986)3CLR.

1. •*?fcpart=rfinfle8^3C.L.ft
2. 262 3 CUR. Ella v. RepabHc SavvldesJ. thistosay: «Inthelightofthesubmissionsoftheparties1havecarefully consideredtheissueofultraviresoftherelevantprovisionsof theaforesaid RegulationsandIhavereachedtheconclusion thatthesaidprovisionsand,inparticular,regulations5and10 andtheAppendixthereto,especiallywhenappliedtogether, are ultraviresLaw 10/69,and,particularly, sections28and 76, thereof, because the said section 28 of Law 10/69 enumerates exhaustively the prerequisites for appointment andsection76,underwhichtheRegulationsinquestionwere made, does not empower the addition of the further prerequisite thatthe educationalists tobe appointed should havepriorityforthispurposeinaccordancewithalistofthose eligibletobeappointed,whichispreparedonthebasisofthe criteriasetoutintheAppendixtosuchRegulations 5 10 15 20 25 Iam,furthermore, oftheopinionthatthe aforementioned provisionsoftheRegulationsinquestion,and,inparticular,of the Appendix thereto, are void for unreasonableness, and consequently, ultra vires, because they introduce some unreasonable criteria of priority for appointment whichare clearly entirely incompatible with the paramount object of appointingthemostsuitablecandidates(see,interalia,inthis respect, Avraam v.The Municipality of Morphou,

(1970)2 CLR. 165,andAngelidesv.TheRepublic,

(1982)3C.L.R. 774.» Inthepresentcasetherespondentintakingitsdecisionforthe appointment of the interested parties on contract, relied onthe prioritylist,thoughnotabsolutely,andsuchlisthasinfactaffected itsdecision. 30 Intheresult,oncethesubjudicedecisionwasbasedonmaterial whichisultravirestheLaw,Ifindthatitisdefectiveandhastobe annulled. 35 coetf Intheresultthesubjudicedecisionisannulledwithnoorderfor · Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 263 SavvldesJ. EH* v. Republic

(1987)UST OFINTERESTEDPARTIES

1. Name Papastylianou-YiannakiKatina SerialNo. inthelist. 5
2. HarkasZacharias 15
3. Hadjipetrouloannis 16
4. PaschalisNicolaos 17
5. ChristodoulouAndreas 19
6. AndreouVassilios 22
7. ConstantinouEvangelos 25
8. StylianouCostas 26
9. TsangaridesStavros 28
10. DemetriouMarigo 30
11. StylianouEleni 33
12. HadjigregoriouMarina 34
13. OrologhaFrideriki 35
14. KoutaMaria 44 264 .10 15