(1987)1987 May 9 [STYLIANIDES J 1 INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OF THECONSTITUTION ANDREASLOUCAIDES, Applicant, ν THE REPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1 THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMISSION, 2 THEMINISTRY OFEDUCATION, 3 THECOUNCILOFMINISTERS Respondents (Case No 784/85) Administrative Law — General Pnnaples — Delegated legislation — The Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Postings Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations 1972— Regulations 5and 10
(2)declared bythis Court, after thesubjudice decision wastaken asultra virestheenabling law—Appointments ofteachersin violation oftheorder of 5 pnonty setoutby Reg 10
(2)—Legality ofadministrative actgoverned bythe Law in force at the time it was taken — The arbiter of the validity of Regulations made under an enabling law is only the Court —~ The respondents, therefore, were bound to apply theaforesaid Regulations Administrative Law—Discretion ofadministration —//should beexercisedfreely, \Q effectively, according to theLaw and the pnnaples ofadministrative Law, without reliance on extraneous considerations Administrative Law—General pnnaples—Duty ofadministration toapply the law (Constitution, Statutes, Delegated Legislation) — The arbiter of the constitutionality of a law or the validity of Regulations made under an 1 5 enabling Law isonly the Court The applicant's name was placed under senal number 17andthose ofthe interested parties under senal numbers 24,33 40 4 1 , 4J and54 inthe relevant list of pnonty compiled in virtue of Regulation 5 of the aforesaid Regulations By means of this recourse the applicant challenges theappointment on contract as Teachers of Physics for the penod 1985 - 30 11 85 ofthe 690 20 3 C.L.R. Loucaides v. Republic interested parties, made in violation of the order of pnonty set outby Reg 10
(2)5 10 15 20 Itmustbe notedthatinSawa ν TheRepublic
(1986)3C LR 445thesaid Regulations 5 and 10
(2)were declared ultra vires the enabling law This decision was delivered on8 3 86,whereas thesub judice decision wastaken on30 8 85 Held, annulling the sub judice decision
(1)An administrative Authority mustobserve andapplythelaw (Constitution,StatutesandRegulationsmade thereunder) The arbiter of the constitutionality of a law and the validity of Regulations made underan enabling law isonlytheCourt
(2)Thelegality of thesubjudiceactisgoverned bytheRegulationsin force at the timeit was made The provisions of Reg 10
(2)were mandatory The applicanthadpnontyovertheinterestedparties Theirappointment flagrantly violates Reg 10
(2)It cannotsurvive Judicialscrutiny Thedecision in Sawa case, supra issued on8 3 86 does notinfluence thelegality of the sub judice actortheoutcomeof thisdecision
(3)In the light of the above there is no need to dwell in depth with the complaintthattherespondentcommissionfailed toexercise itsdiscretion,but it simply executed a directive of the Ministry Itsuffices to observe that an Authontyshouldexercise itsdiscretionfreely, effectively, accordingtothelaw and the pnnaples of administrative Law, and not rely on extraneous considerations Subjudice decisionannulled No orderas tocosts 25 Casesrefened to Sawav 7ne/?epub/ic
(1986)3CLR 445, Kapsouv 77je/?epub/ic
(1983)3CLR 1336, Papakynacou ν TheRepublic
(1983)3 CLR 870 Psara-Kromdou ν TheRepublic[19S5)3 C LR 1900, 30 Kynakidou ν TheRepublic
(1986)3 C LR 913 Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of the respondents toappointon contracttheinterested parties asTeachers of Physics of Secondary Education from 1 9
- - 30 11.
- 35 AS. Angelides, for the applicant. R Petridou(Mrs,), for the respondents Cur. adv vult 691 Loucaides v. Republic
(1987)STYLIANIDES J. read the following judgment. The applicant by this recourse challenges the appointment on contract ofthe 6 interested partiesasTeachersof PhysicsofSecondary Education from 1.9.85-30.11.
- Two grounds of law were raisedbycounsel forthe applicant:- 5 (a) That the respondents acted contrary to Law, namely, Regulation 10(2}of the Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations, 1972,as amended; and, (b)Thattherespondents, contrarytoLaw,intakingthesub- 10 judice decision simply executed adirective bythe Ministryof Education. The applicant and the interested parties are qualified Teachers of Physics and applied for appointment under the relevant Law and Regulations tothe Ministry of Education. 15 Alist of priority was prepared by virtue of Regulation
- The applicant had priority over allthe appointees, interested parties, being No. 17, whereas the interested parties were Nos. 24,33,40,41,42 and
- Regulation 10
(2)provided:«Appointments on contract are made in order of priority from the relevant listof personstobe appointed». Under Section 27 of the Public Educational ServiceLaw, 1969 (No. 10 of 1969) a permanent post in the educational service is filled either permanently or temporarily on contract for a certain 25 period or from month to month, as the Council of Ministers may decide.Oneofthemodesoffillingatemporarypostison contract, again asthe Council of Ministersmay decide. The Council of Ministers on the submission of the Ministry of Education decided the filling ofa number ofpostson contract for 30 three months as from 1.9.85.Thisdecision wascommunicated to the respondent Educational Service Commission. On 29th August, 1985,therespondent Commission addressed a letter to the Ministers of Education inquiring whether the intention of the Ministry was the appointment of those 35 educationalists who were serving on contract in the school-year 1984-85, otherwise the Commission would be bound, according 692 20 3 C.L.R. Loucaides v. Republic StyllanldesJ . to the existing legislation and having regard to a recent relevant decision of the Supreme Court, to proceed with appointmenton contract of those who were entitled onthe basisof thelist. The Ministry by letter requested the Educational Service - Commission to appoint on contract thoc^ educational officers who were serving on contract during the school-year 1984-85, excluding replacements and wives of Greek officers for which a separate decisions was taken in view of the fact that a Bill was expected to be introduced shortly to the House of 10 Representatives. On 30.8.85 the respondent Commission took the sub judice decision. They appointed oncontractthe6 interested parties for 3 months as from 1.9.85and disregarded the applicant. On8.11.85theEducationalOfficers onContract (Appointment 15 to Post inthe Public Educational Service) Law, 1985 (No. 161 of 1985) was enacted, section 3 of which provides;- 20 25 30 35 40 «3.-(l) Κατά παρέκκλιση από τις διατάξεις των περί Δημοσίας Εκπαιδευτικής Υπηρεσίας Νόμων τ ο υ 1969 έως (Αρ. 2) τ ο υ 1985ή οποιουδήποτεάλλου Νόμου ή Κανονισμού οοποίος αφορά στηδημόσια εκπαιδευτική υπηρεσία, σχετικά με τις μεθόδους και διαδικασίες πλήρωσης θέσεων στη δημοσία εκπαιδευτική υπηρεσία, η Επιτροπή δύναι αι κ α ι ά διακριτική εξουσία να προβαίνει σε διορισμούςεκπαιδευτικών λειτουργών με σύμβαση.
(2)Κάθε εκπαιδευτικός λειτουργός με σύμβαση ο οποίος βρίσκεται στη δημόσιαεκπαιδευτική υπηρεσία κατά την 1η Δεκεμβρίου 1985 και ανεξάρτητα τ ο υ αν η υπηρεσία τ ο υ ήταν συνεχήςήδιακεκομμένη, διορίζεται από την Επιτροπή από την ημερομηνία δημοσίευσης τ ο υ παρόντος Νόμου στην επίσημη εφημερίδα της Δημοκρατίας, σε κατάλληλη θέση στη δημόσια εκπαιδευτική υπηρεσία σύμφωνα με τιςπρόνοιεςτων περί Δημοσίας Εκπαιδευτικής Υπηρεσίας Νόμων τ ο υ 1969έως(Αρ.2)τ ο υ1985 καισύμφωναμετους πίνακες που ετοιμάσθηκαν και θα διαβιβαστούν από τ ο Γενικό Διευθυντή τ ο υ Υπουργείου Παιδείας προς την Επιτροπή». («3
(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969 - (No.2) of 1985 or of any 693 Styllanides J . Loucaides v. Republic
(1987)other Law or Regulation, concerning the Public Educational Service, in respect of themethods andproceduresoffillingof posts inthe Public Educational Service, theCommission may initsdiscretion makeappointmentsofeducational officers on contract.
(2)Everyeducational officer on contract who serves in the public educational service ason the 1stDecember, 1985and irrespective of the fact whether hisservice wascontinuous or not, shall be appointed bythe Commission inan appropriate position in the public educational service inaccordance with 10 the provisions of the Public Educational Service Laws 1969(No.2) of 1985 and the lists;which have been compiled and shall be forwarded bythe Director-General of the Ministryof Education tothe Commission»). On8.3.86the President ofthisCourt inSawa v. TheRepublic, 15
(1986)3 C.L.R.445, declared the Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Emplacements,Transfers, PromotionsandRelatedMatters) Regulations. 1972, invalid as being ultra vires the enabling Law and unreasonable. Itisthe contention of counsel for therespondents inherwritten 20 address that in view of the decision in Sawa case (supra), this recourse cannot proceed as the applicant has no more any legitimate interest; that the respondent Commission acted in accordance with Section 28 of Law No. 10/69; and that the application oftheRegulationswould lead tounreasonable, unjust 25 and unequal results forthe interested parties. An appointment in the public service even on contract is an administrative act.TheadministrativeAuthoritymustobserveand apply the Law (Constitution, Statutes and Regulations made thereunder).ALawcannot bedisregarded on any groundbyany 30 administrative or other public authority. The legislative power is vested in the House of Representatives and by delegation to another body -inthiscase theCouncil of Ministersunders.76of Law No. 10/69. The arbiter of the constitutionality of a Law and the validity of Regulations made under an enabling Law, isonly 35 the Court. In Kapsou v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 1336, Triantafyllides, P.,had thistosayon pages 1340 -1341:«Before proceeding any further in this judgme.it 1 would like to observe that I am inclined to the view that the 40 694 5 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Loucaides v. Republic Styllanides J. respondent Commission could not,even on advice from the Attorney -General,disregard as invalid the above referred to regulations
(4).
(7)andtheproviso toregulation
(6)whichare, in effect, legislation of a delegated nature enacted under section 36 of Law 33/67. Once such legislation was made by the competent organ, in this instance by the Council of Ministers, such legislation has to be complied with until it is repealed by the Council of Ministers (inview of theadvice of the Attorney-General or for any other reason) or until it is found to be ultra vires by a judicial decision (see, in this respect, inter alia, Tsoutsos on The Administration and the Law («Τσούτσου, Διοίκησις καιΔίκαιον»),
(1979), pp.41, 88, 89, 99, 116, Manual of Administrative Law by Spiliotopoulos («Σπηλιωτοπούλου, Εγχειρίδιον Διοικητικού Δικαίου»),
(1977), p. 79 et seq., and Delikostopoulos on Administrative Law («Δεληκωστοπούλου, Διοικητικόν Δίκαιον»), vol. A,
(1972), p.47et seq.)». The legality of the act complained of is governed by the regulations in force at the time it was made. The provisions of Regulation 10
(2)were mandatory. They left no discretion to the Commission - (PapaKyriacou v. The Republic,
(1983)3 C.L.R. 870; Psara- Kronidou v. The Republic,
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1900; Kyriakidou v. The Republic,
(1986)3 C.L R. 913). 25 Theapplicant,according totheprescribed list, hadpriority over all the interested parties. Their appointment on contract is a flagrant violation of the Regulations and itcannotsurvive judicial scrutiny. The judgment in Sawa case (supra) issued on 8.3.86 does not influence eitherthe legality of thesub-judice decision or 30 thedecision of theCourtinthepresent Case. In view of the above Ineed not deal in depth with the second ground raised by counsel for the applicant. Itsuffices to observe that an Authority should exercise its discretion freely, effectively according to the Law and the principles of Administrative Law, 35 and notrely onextraneous considerations. For the foregoing reasons the sub-judice decision is declared nullandvoid andof noeffect whatsoever underArticle 146.4(b)of theConstitution. 40 Let there be no orderas to costs. Subjudice decisionannulled. No order as to costs. 695