C.L.R. 1988June8 [SAWIDES,!] INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION MATHEOSMATHEOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMISSION, 2.THEMINISTRYOFEDUCATION, Respondents. and ASAMENDEDBYORDEROFTHECOURTDATED9TH DECEMBER, 1987 GEORGHIOS M.MATHEOU, - Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEEDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION, 2.THEMINISTRY OFEDUCATION,1 Respondents. (CaseNo. 714/87). 1199 Matheou v.Republic
(1988)Misconceptionoffact—TransferofEducationalOfficers—Placingapplicanton listofthoseliabletobetransferredontheassumptionthathisresidencewas inLimassol,whereasitwasinPlataniskiavillage—Subjudicedecisionhas tobeannulled. The facts of this case appear sufficiently from thejudgment of the 5 Court. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Costsagainstrespondents. Recourse. Recourse against thedecison oftherespondents toincludeapplicant inthelistofeducationalists subjecttotransfer andtotransfer himfromLimassol toLarnaca. \Q AS. Angelides, for the applicant. R. Petridou (Mrs), for therespondents. Cur. adv. vult. 15 SAVVIDES J. read the following judgment. The applicant challengesthedecisionoftherespondentstoincludetheapplicant in the list of educationalists subject totransfer and transfer him from Limassol toLarnaca. The applicant comes from Kyrenia.Heisateacherofphilolo- 20 gy in the secondary education andwas serving until 1974at Kyrenia. In 1974 as aresult of theTurkish invasion he left Cyprus on leave andworked abroad. In 1980hereturned toCyprus and wasposted atLimassol whereheserved untilthetimeofthe sub judicedecision. Theapplicantwasplaced,sometimein 1987,onthelistofeducationalists subject to transfer in accordance withcertain criteria setdown byrespondent No. l t andwasinfact transferred from Limassol toLarnaca byadecisionofrespondentNo. 1 dated 12th August, 1987, for the purpose of satisfying justified claims of 30 1200 25 3C.L.R. Matheouv.Republic SavvidesJ. othereducationalists.Asaresulthefiled thepresentrecourse.An. objection against histransfer wasrejected by adecision ofrespondentNo. 1 dated 10thSeptember,1987. Counsel for applicant argued by his written addressthatthe 5 permanentresidenceoftheapplicantisinKyreniaandnotinLimassol,aswaswronglyconsidered bytherespondentsandthat, inanyeventhedoesnotresideinLimassolbutinPlataniskia,a Turkishvillage,wherehewasgivenbythegovernmentahouse temporarily.HealsoarguedthattheprovisotoRegulation3
(2)of IQ the1987RegulationsisultravirestheLaw(s.2thereof) asfaras it provides that the displaced educationalists who served in schoolsoftheRepublicduring 19y4-1976areconsideredtohave servedawayfromtheirplaceofresidenceduringthatperiodalone and not until today..He further contended that Regulation 3 *<• createsunreasonablediscrimination betweendisplaced andnon displacededucationalists,whocanhavetheirpermanentresidence anywhere they choose.Counsel alsosubmitted that applicant's periodof absence shouldhavebeenconsidered asserviceaway fromhomehavingregardtoparagraph (c)oftheprovisotothe 'v meaningoftheword"service"inRegulation2. Counsel for therespondents argued thatthe Regulationsdid notoffend againstanyprovision of thelaw,that nodiscriminationwascreated between displaced and non-displaced persons and thesubjudicedecision wasreasonably opentotherespon25 dentS · I have considered the arguments of counsel very carefully. Counselfortheapplicantalleged,amongstothers,-thattheapplicantresidesatPlataniskiavillageandnotinLimassolandthushis .placeofresidenceforthepurposesof thelawandregulationsis considered to be Episkopi which is the nearest place where a school of Secondary Education operates and not Limassol as wronglyconsideredbytherespondents.Counselforthe respondentsdidnotdenythisallegationbutstatedthattherespondents tookintoconsideration,indecidingthattheapplicant'splaceof 35 residence isLimassol, thefact thatheaskedtobepostedinLi1201 SavvidesJ. Matheou v.Republic
(1988)massolonhisreturnfromEngland,aswellasthefactthatherequestedtwicehistransferfromtheTechnicalSchoolinLimassol toaGymnasiuminLimassol,inaccordancewithRegulation3
(3)ofthe 1987Regulations. Theplaceofresidenceofapersonisafactual issueandnota matter of speculation. In theabsenceof anycontradictory evidenceon thepartof therespondentsItakeitasgranted thatthe applicantresidesinPlataniskiavillageandnotinLimassol.Plataniskia village,asit appears on theofficial mapsof Cyprus isa villageat thenorthofPissouri.Havingtakenintoconsideration thecontentsofthemeetingofrespondentNo. 1 dated 11thJuly, 1987,andespeciallyappendix"A"thereto,whichisaclassification of schools of Secondary Education, Ifindthat thenearest placetoapplicant'sresidencewhereaschoolof SecondaryEducation operates isEpiskopi and notLimassol.Asaresult Ifind that therespondents,indeterminingtheapplicant'splaceofresidenceforthepurposesoftheLawasbeingLimassoldidnotconduct adueinquiryintothematteroftheapplicant'splaceofresidenceandindetermininghisplaceofresidenceforthepurposes oftheLawasbeinginLimassol wereactingunderamisconceptionoffact Thesubjudicedecisionmust,therefore,beannulled onthisground. Havingfound asaboveIdeemitunnecessarytodealwiththe question of ultra vires of the Regulation and any other point raised,sincethematterofthetransferability oftheapplicantwill havetobeconsideredafresh inthelightofthisjudgment Intheresultthisrecoursesucceedsandthesubjudicedecision isherebyannulledwithcostsagainsttherespondents. Subjudicedecisionannulled withcostsagainstrespondents. 1202