3 C.L.R. 1987March 18 [LOWS,J.) INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION GEORGHIOS S. SARRIS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC O F CYPRUS, AND/OR THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Case No. 456/84). Administrative law — General principles — Legality of administrative act — Governed bylegislation inforceatthe timewhen itwasmade. 5 10 15 Administrativelaw—General principles—Subsidiary legislation—Onceenacted by the competent organ, it should be complied with, until repealed or declaredultra vires byajudicialdecision. InvirtueofthesubJudicedecisiontherespondentCommission appointed . the three interested parties on contract to the post of School-Master of Chemistry, notwithstanding applicant' spriontyinaccordance withthelistof. candidates prepared under the Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations, 1972. The sub judice decision was taken prior to the 9.7.84. On 8.3.86 the President ofthisCourtpronounced inSawa v.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R. 445 regulations 5 and 10 of the said Regulations as being ultra vires the enabling law. Held, annullingthe subjudice decisional) Once legislation of delegated naturehasbeen enacted bythecompetent organ, ithastobecompliedwith, untilItisrepealed oruntilItisfound tobe ultraviresbyajudicialdecision. 20
(2)It is a cardinal principle of administrative law that the legality of administrativeactsisgovernedbythelegislationinforceatthetimewhenthey were made.
(3)Itfollows that the subjudice decision isgoverned byreg. 10
(2),which atsuchtimehadnotbeendeclaredasultravires.ItIsclearthatthe respondent 283 Santo v. Republic
(1987)' acted indirect violation ofreg. 10
(2). Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Sawa v. TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.445; 5 Psara —Kronidou v. TheRepublic
(1985)3C.L.R. 1900; Kapsouv. TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1336; LordouandOthersv.TheRepublic
(1968)3 C.LR.
- Recourse. Recourseagainstthe decision oftherespondenttoappoint on 10 contract tothe post of Schoolmaster of Chemistry the interested partiesinpreference andinsteadoftheapplicant. AS. AngelideswithL. Sarris, fortheapplicant. R. Vrahimi(Mrs.), fortherespondent. Cur. adv.vult 15 LORISJ. read the following judgment. The applicant of the present recourse impugns the decision of the respondent commission published in the daily press on 9.7.84whereby the interested parties were appointed on contract to the post of School-Master of Chemistry inpreference toand instead of the 20 applicant. Thesimplefactsofthiscasesareverybrieflyasfollows: The applicant graduated in1973from «Metsovio»Polytechnic ofAthenswith a degree inChemical Engineering. Heappliedto therespondent commission forappointmentasaSchool-Master 25 ofChemistryandtherespondentemplacedhisnameintheListof Candidatesfortheyear1984—1985underserialNo.
- Thenamesofthethreeinterestedpartieswerelikewiseplaced bytherespondentonthesamelistofCandidatesunderserialNos. 28,29and
- The aforesaid List of Candidates was prepared by the 284 30 3C.L.R. Sards v. Republic Lorfe J . respondent Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Educational Officers (Teaching staff) (Appointments, Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations, 1972,as amended. c Regulation 10
(2)of the aforesaid Regulations provides that «Appointments on contract aremade inorder ofpriorityfrom the relevantlistsof personstobe appointed». The respondent E.S.C. in virtue of the decision hereby impugned, appointedoncontractasSchool-MastersofChemistry for a year i.e. from 1.9.84-31.8.85 all three interested parties in 10 preference to and instead of the applicant who had obvious priorityoverthe interested partieson the Listof Candidates. The respondent E.S.C. admits having acted contrary to the Regulation aforesaid in reaching at the sub-judice decision and maintainsstrict compliance wjth the list«would lead tounjust and 15 unreasonable results as far as the interested parties are concerned». Afterthehearingof thiscasewasconcluded andjudgment was reserved, the learned President of the Court in delivering judgment in the case of Efstathios Sawa v. Republic
(1986)3 20 C.L.R. 445declared inter aliaRegulations5and 10asbeingultra viresthe enabling Law (Law 10/69). In the circumstances Ihave considered itexpedient todirectthe re-opening oftherecoursein order tohear argument inthelightofthejudgment inSawa case (Supra). 25 At the re-opening of this case learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the sub-judice decision was taken in 1984itslegalitymustbegovernedbytheRegulationsinquestion which were valid at the time havingbeen declared ultravires the enablingLawbyajudicialdecision pronounced aslateasthe8th 30 March 1986. Learned Counsel for the respondent rightly conceded that regulation 5 and 10
(2)were inforce atthe time of thesubjudice decision and ought to have been followed by the respondent E.S.C.inreaching atthesubjudicedecision. "' 35 Ihave carefully considered the meritsofthiscase aswellasthe 285 Lori· J . Sarrto v. Republic
(1987)repercussions that might ensue in view of thejudgment in Sawa case (Supra) whereby Regulations 5 and 10 were declared ultra viresthe enabling enactment. As regards the merits of the case I hold the view that the respondent Commission could not disregard the Regulations in 5 question which were valid at the time of the sub-judice decision and they had not up to that time been declared «ultra vires»by a judicial decision. Inthis connection Imight as well repeat what I have stated in the case of Psara— Kronidou v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1900 at p. 1903: «These regulations are in effect 10 legislation of a delegated nature enacted by the Council of Ministers pursuant to the provisions of s. 76 of the Public EducationalService Law of 1969 (Law 10/69) andasstatedbythe learned President of this Court in the case of Kapsou v. The Republic
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1336 atp. 1341 'Once such legislation 15 was made by the competentorgan, inthis case by theCouncilof Ministers such legislation has to be complied with until it is repealed bytheCouncilof Ministers...oruntilitisfoundtobeultra vires by ajudicial decision (see in this respect, interalia, Tsoutsos on the Administration and the Law 1979 pp 41, 88, 99, 116. 20 ManualofAdministrative LawbySpiliotopoulos
(1977)ρ.79 seq., and Delikostopoulos onAdministrative Law Vol. A
(1972)p.47 et seq.)'» Now in view of the judgment in Sawa case (supra) whereby Regulations 5 and 10 were declared ultraviresthe enabling law it must be borne in mind that the aforesaid judgment was pro- 25 nounced on 8.3.86 whilst thesub-judice decision was reached at priortothe9.7.84i.e. the dateof itspublication inthedaily press; and «itisacardinalprinciple ofAdministrative law thatthe legality of administrative acts isgoverned by the legislation in force atthe time when they were made» (vide Lordou & others v. The Re - 30 public
(1968)3 C.L.R. 427 atp. 433.) So thesub judice decision isgoverned by regulation 10
(2)and itisabundantlyclearthattherespondentE.S.C.actedindirectvio lationof theRegulation inquestion; therefore thesub judice deci sion must be annulled. 286 35 3C.L.R. SanrU v. Republic Lori» J. Intheresulttherecoursesucceeds;andthesubjudicedecision isherebyannulled.Lettherebenoorderastoitscosts. Subjudice decision annulled. No order astocosts. 287