(1987)1987 May 28 ISAWIDES J) INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION NELLIPSARA -KRONIDOU, Applicant, ν THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS, THROUGH 1 THE EDUCATIONALSERVICE COMMISSION, 2 THECOUNCIL OF MINISTERS, Respondents (Case No 502/85) AdministrativeLaw — GeneralPnnaples — Delegatedlegislation— Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and RelatedMatters) Regulations1972—Regs 5 and 10
(2)— Appointments indisregardof the orderofpnonfy intherelevantlistcompiled in virtueof Reg 5 — Subjudice decisiontaken beforethe decision inSawa 5 ν The Republic U986) 3 C L R 445 whereby Regs 5 and 10{2) were declared ultraviresenablinglaw—Respondents notentitledtodisregard said Regulations for so long as same were in force Applicant's name was placed undersenal number 4 onthe pnontylistof candidates for appointmentas teacher of DomesticScience Such list was 1 0 compiled in virtue of the aforesaid Reg 5 Despite her pnonty number she was not offered appointment for 1983 1984 because the Commission decided to renew the appointmentof those who served on contractfor the school-year 1982-1983 As a result applicant filed recourse 443/83*"When applicantwas informed thatthecontractsof thosewhoserved for 1983-1984 1 5 were renewed for theschool-year 1984-1985, thusleaving herout,she filed the present recourse challenging theappointmentoftheinterestedpartiesto the aforesaid post for thesaid school-year Thepriority of theapplicant over the interestedparties onthesaid listof appointeeswas notdisputed Held, annullingthe sub judice decision
(1)The respondentCommission 2 0 was not entitled to disregard Reg 10
(2)of the aforesaid Regulations, in accordance with which appointments are made in accordance with the relevant listof appointees Inorderofpnonty
(2)The decision in Sawa ν TheRepublic
(1986)3 C LR 445, whereby 710 3 C.L.R. Psara-Kronidou v. Republic Savvides J. Regs 5 and 10
(2)of the said Regulations were declared ultra vires the enabling law, cannotaffect the outcome of this case, since the decision was issued after thetakingofthesubjudice decision and,consequently,atthetime of the sub judice decision the Regulations were still in force 3 Sub judice decision annulledwith the exceptionof theappointment of interested party Phihppou Recourse against interested party Philipouwithdrawn anddismissed No orderastocosts 10 Casesreferredto Psara-Krontdou ν TheRepublic{\98S) 3C LR 1900. Samsv TheRepublic
(1987)3 CLR 186, Samsv TheRepublic{1987)3 C L R 229 15 Themistocleousν TheRepublic
(1987)3 CLR 196, Sams ν TheRepbublic
(1987)3 CLR 283. Elia ν TheRepublic
(1987)3 C LR 253, Kissonergisand Othersν TheRepublic{1987)3 C LR 312. Themistocleousν TheRepublic
(1987)3 CLR 705. 2C Sawa ν TheRepublic
(1986)3 CLR 445 Recourse. Recourse against thedecision of therespondentstoappointon contract as teachers of DomesticScience the interested partiesin preference and instead of theapplicant. 25 A. S.Angehdes, for theapplicant. Κ Petridou(Mrs.), for the respondents Cur. adv. vult SAWIDES J. read the following judgment. This recourse is directed against the decision of the respondents to appoint on 30 contract as teachers of Domestic Science the interested parties, namely, Anastasia Philippou, Stella Ioannou, Androula Kouali, Maria Karaoli, Efthymia Mouzoura, Louiza Aristotelous, Haritini MavToudi,AndrianaSpanoudiandEleniMattheoufor theschoolyear 1984-1985instead of theapplicant. 711 Sawides J . Psara-Kronldou v. Republic
(1987)The applicant graduated «Harokopios School» of Athens in 1960 and from July, 1960 she was appointed and served in the Commercial Lyceum of Famagusta until 1965, when she resigned. In 1980 she applied for re-appointment asateacherof Domestic Science and was placed on the relevant list of 5 appointees as No. 51.Following her objection, in 1982,she was upgraded on the relevant list as number
- Despite her priority number she was not offered any appointment in 1983 and she filed, as a result, recourse No. 442/
- On 11.7.1984 she was informed through the press, that the contracts of those teachers 10 whoserved during 1983-1984wererenewed for 1984-1985,thus leaving her out, whereupon she filed the present recourse. The sub judice decision is challenged on the ground of unlawfulness in that it is contrary to the provisions of the Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) {Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations, 1972 and in violation of the priority number of the applicant on the list of appointees. 15 The subjudice decision dated 9.7.1984, readsas follows: «3.Appointments oncontract. 20 TheCommission inviewofthedocumentsofthe DirectorGeneral ofthe MinistryofEducation No.197/69/3,dated28/ 6/84 and 3/7/84 and bearing in mind the provisions of the Law and the Regulations as well as its decision dated 12/9/ 1983 considers that for the reasons mentioned in the said 25 decision, the appointment on contract of the teachers and instructorswhoservedoncontractduringtheschool-year 83/ 84 isimperative.» Duringthe hearing of thecaseittranspired that interested party Philippou was not amongst the persons appointed on contract 30 for the school-year 1984-1985, although she was amongst those who served on contract during the previous year, the reason being, as explained by counsel for the respondent, that she has been offered permanent appointment. Counsel for applicant conceded inhisreplythatifthisisthepositiontherecourseagainst 35 the interested party should be withdrawn. Itisclear from the sub judice decision, which is attached to the opposition, that this interested party is not amongst those persons to whom appointment on contract was offered for 1984-1985 'n viewof this I consider the recourse against this interested party as 40 712 3 C.L.R. Psara-Kronidou v. Republic S a w i d e s J. withdrawn and itistherefore hereby dismissed. In accordance with Regulation 10
(2)ofthe Regulations (cited above),appointrrients on contractaremadefrom therelevant lists ofappointeesinorderofpriority.Thepriorityoftheapplicantover 5 the interested parties on the list of appointees has not been disputed. Thegistofthecase,asitemanatesfrom theaddressesofcounsel andthedecision oftherespondent dated 12.9.1983,onwhich the sub judice decision was based, is whether the respondent, 10 acted legally in deciding not to apply the Regulations orwhether itwaslegallybound toapplysameeven ifitconsideredthemtobe unreasonable orultraviresthe law. Thesamequestioncamebefore thisCourtinanumberofcases, 15 where itwasheld that the respondent could notdisregard the provisionsofRegulation 10
(2)aslongasthe said Regulation was inforce.Thisviewwasalsotaken inthecaseofPsara-Kronidouv. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 1900,(Recourse No.442/83 ofthe same applicant concerning the appointments for 1983-1984 20 which had,inthe meantime, been determined). This casewas followed byanumberofother casesconcerning appointmentsof teachers on contract and the applicability of Regulation10
(2)wherethesameviewwastaken.(SeeSarrisv.TheRepublic (Case No. 940/85, in which judgment was delivered by me on 25 27.1.1987)*; Sarrisv. The Republic (Case No. 424/83, inwhich judgment was delivered on 5.2.1987)**; Themistocleous v. Republic (Case No. 816/85 inwhichjudgment was deliveredon 13.2.1987);*** Sarrisv. Republic (Case No. 456/84, judgment delivered on 18.3.87);**** Eliav. Republic (Case No. 499/83, 30 judgment delivered on 10.3.87);***** Kissonergis and others v. Republic (Case No. 903/85, judgment delivered on 30.3.1987******and Themistocleous v.Republic (CaseNo.512/ 83,judgmentdeliveredon25.5.1987)*******.Alltheabove cases arestill unreported. • Reported in
(1987)3 CLR. 186. ·*reported in
(1987)3CLR. 229. "* Reported in
(1987)3 CLR. 196. ****Reported in
(1987)3CLR.283. *****Reported in
(1987)3 CLR. 253. ******Reported in
(1987)3 CLR. 312. * * * » " Reported in
(1987)3CLR. 705. 713 S a w l d e s J. Psara-Kronidou v. Republic
(1987)Extensive reference to the decision of 12.9.83, which formed the basis of the subjudice decision, has been made byme in the case of Elia v. Republic (supra) and I find it unnecessary to expound further on it. It is obvious from its contents that extraneous considerations weretaken intoaccountinarrivingatthesaiddecision,inviolation ofRegulation 10
(2),thestrictapplication ofwhichwasconsidered by the respondent to be unfair to those persons who had been serving on contract duringthe previousyears. 5 Ineed not repeat what hasbeen said in the above caseswhich 10 Iadopt and Itherefore find that the subjudice decision has been taken in violation of the Law in force at the time and must be annulled. Itistobe notedthattheaforesaid Regulation has,inthe meantime, been declared void in the case of Sai/va v. The Republic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 445, as being ultra vires the law and 15 unreasonable, but this cannot affect the outcome of the present case, since at the time of the sub judice decision the said Regulation wasstill in force. In the result this recourse succeeds concerning all interested partieswiththe exception ofinterested partyAnastasia Philippou, 20 and the subjudice decision isannulled tothat extent. Nocosts. Sub judice decision annulled inpart. No orderastocosts. 714