(1987)1987June 29 (K0URR1S,J] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION ANDREAS MILTIADOUS, Applicant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent. (Case No. 607/86). EducationalOfficers—Transfers—TheEducatiorilOfficers(TeachingPersonnel) (Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) (Amending)Regulations 71/85—Reg.25
(1)—Ambitof— Georghiadesv. TheRepublic
(1987)3CLR 343 adopted andfollowed. By means of the sub judice decision dated 129 1986 the respondent 5 Commission decided totransfertheapplicant,asecondaryschool teacherof Gymnastics, from Polemi Gymnasium to Panayia Gymnasium The transfer wasmadeinexerciseofthepowersconferred ontherespondentCommission byReg.25
(1)*ofthe aforesaid Regulations. Held, annulling the subjudice decision:
(1)Asit washeld by Pikis,J in \Q Georghiades v. TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R.343,the ambit of Regulation 25
(1)isconfined totheconferment ofpowertogaugegapsintheServiceand therebyafford abreathingspacetobndgethem onamorelastingbasis;Reg. 25isnot intended toby-passthe ordinary procedure for transfers
(2)Asthe facts of thepresentcase are similartothe facts in Georghiades', 15 supra, the sub judice decision would be annulled on the ground that the Commission laboured under a misconception as to the nature, ambit and extentof theirpowers. Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Georghiadesv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.
- ' TherelevantpartofthisRegulationisquotedatpp 773-774post 772 20 * C.L.R. Miltiadous v. Republic Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to transfer applicant from Polemi Gymnasium to Panayia Gymnasium. K.Papaloizou,for the applicant. 5 P.derides, for the respondent. Cur. adv.vult. KOURRISJ.read thefollowingjudgment. Theapplicant,bythe present recourse, challenges the decision of the Educational Service Commission to transfer him from Polemi Gymnasium to 10 Panayia Gymnasium. By a decision of the Educational Service Commission dated 6/6/86, the applicant was transfered as from 16th September, 1986, from Paphos Gymnasiums to Panayia Gymnasium. Upon taking notice of the aforesaid transfer, the applicant objected to 15 the respondent and they upheld his objection and by their decision dated 4th September, 1986, transfered the applicant from Panayia Gymnasium to Polemi Gymnasium. On 12/9/1986 the respondent Commission took a decision by which they transfered the applicant from Polemi Gymnasium to 20 Panayia Gymnasium for three days a week and to Paphos Gymnasiums for anotherthree daysa week. The applicant, who is a Gymnastics, Secondary School Teacher, feeling aggrieved about this transfer, filed the present recourse maintaining that the sub judice decision is null and void 25 andillegal and was taken inexcessand/orabuse of power. Itiscommonground thatthedecision for thetransfer was taken under Regulation 25 of the Educational Officers (Teaching Personnel) {Appointments, Postings, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) (Amending) Regulations of 1985 (No. 71/85) 30 Official Gazette, Supplement No.3, p.
- Regulation 25,so far as isrelevant for thepresent proceedings, reads as follows:- 35 «H Επιτροπή, με αιτιολογημένη απόφαση της, μπο ρεί να προβαίνει σεέκτακτες μεταθέσεις Εκπαιδευτικών Λειτουργών στις ακόλουθες περιπτώσεις:α) Κατά τονμηνάΣεπτέμβριο και πριν απότην έναρξη 773 Kowft· J. WhtodoMv.R«v«bUc
(1987)των μαθημάτων, εάνέκτακτες καιαπρόβλεπτες εκπαι δευτικές ανάγκεςτοεπιβάλλουν.» («The Commission may by a reasoned decision effect exceptional transfers of Educational Officers inthefollowing cases:- 5 a)InthemonthofSeptemberandbefore thebeginningof lessons, if exceptional andunforeseeable educationalneeds makeitnecessary»). Thus, it appears that Regulation 25(l)(a) empowers the Educational Service Commission to transfer exceptionally \0 EducationalistsinthemonthofSeptember,providedsuchcourse is taken by unforeseeable needs of the Service and further providedthedecisionauthorisingthetransferisdulyreasoned. The respondents decided to transfer the applicanttoPanayia Gymnasiumon12/9/1986inexerciseofthesepowers. The applicant lodged objection to his transfer by virtue of 15 Regulation25
(2)buttherespondentsfailedtoreplyuptothefiling of thepresentrecoursewhichwas onthe2ndOctober,
- ItshouldbepointedoutthatonlyRegulation25empowersthe Educational Service Commission to make transfers at the commencementof theAcademicyear. 20 The subject matter of the impugned decision was not the satisfaction of theordinaryneedsof theSecondary Education or the adjustment of such needs with the wishes of those in the Service. Thedecisionpurportedtomeettheextraordinaryneeds ofEducationearlierunforeseeable, madewithintheframework of 25 thepowersvestedintherespondentsbyRegulation
- Withduerespect, IagreewithwhatPikis,J.,saidinhisjudgment inthecaseofGeorghiosGeorghiadesofPaphos, v.TheRepublic, RecourseNo. 598/86, dated 11/4/1987*astotheobject ofthe transfers underRegulation25,whichisasfollows:30 «Such transfers should necessarily be of such duration lastingnolongerthannecessary toenabletheparriestomeet the needs of education on a more lasting basis within the *EfapoMdtn(19Θ7)3 C LR.
- 774 3 C.L.R. 5 MUtiadooe v.Republic Kourri· J. context of the powers vested in them by the Regulations precedingRegulation25.Regulation25isnotintendedtobypasstheordinaryprocedure fortransfers.Itsambitisconfined to theconferment ofpowertogauge gapsinthe Educational Serviceandtherebyafford thebreathingspacetobridgethem ona more lastingbasis.» The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of Georghiades case (supra)and withdue respect Iadopt whatPikis J., saidinhisjudgment atp.3:- 10 15 20 «Examination of the reasoning of the sub judice decision persuades me that the respondents did not exercise their power within the limits of their discretion under Regulation
- They did not address themselves to meet gaps in the service on a temporary basis but extended their enquiry as if free at the beginning of the year to continue the processof transfers envisaged bythe preceding regulations.Insodoing they laboured under a misconception as tothe nature, ambit and extent of their powers, a misconception that vitiated decisions taken thereunder, including the transfer of the applicant. Consequently, the sub judice decision must be annulled.» Likewise,on thefactsofthepresent case,Iamsatisfied thatthe respondent Commission intransfering the applicant from Polemi Gymnasium to Panayia Gymnasium, laboured under a 25 misconception as tothe nature, ambitand extent oftheir powers and consequently, the subjudice decision ishereby annulled. In the circumstances the sub judice decision is annulled, pursuanttotheprovisionsofArticle 146.4.(b)oftheConstitution, with no orderastocosts. 30 Subjudice decision annulled. No order asto costs. 775