(1988)1988June24 (SAWIDES,J.J INTHEMATTEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION LEDAPILAVAKI, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMISSION, 2.THEMINISTRYOFEDUCATION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 751186). EducationalOfficers—Transfers—Ordinarytransfers—in virtue ofReg.24(c) oftherelevantregulationssuchtransfersshouldbeannouncedonthe2nd halfofMayineachparticularyearandtakeeffectasfromthebeginningof thenextyear—SubjudicetransferannouncedinSeptember—ithastobe annulled. 5 The facts of this case appearsufficiently from thejudgment of the Court Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: JQ Kotsoniv.EducationalServiceCommission
(1986)3C I A .2394; Georghiadesv. TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.343; Payiasiv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.LJR. 1585; 1260 3 C.L.R. Pilavaki v.The Republic - Evangelatosv.TheRepublic
(1988)3CX.R:529; • ι• ·' ' "Ί •• TheofanousviTheRepublicimTy'hC.L.Vi. 1574. Recourse'. 5 . ' . *.•·:, Recourse against'the decision/of therespondents·to transfer applicantfromNicosia to LaxnacaV , ' •-- . - . ' . - - · • / ·u\ J: ,·.-..,'. 1 A. S?Arigelidest for theapplicant. '· '-• *• • ; ' ' · ' " • " · " * A. Vassiliades, for the respondent. » .t ·. . ' . ' • • j . ,· Λ : .>. . ·<»•' . • "'·• >. .· , · n. . Cur. adv. vult. 10 r 15 20 25 SAVVIDES J. read thefollowing judgment. The applicant challenges'the decision ofrespondentNo.· 1datedthe22ndSep tember,1986,totransfer the' applicantfromNicosiato Lamaca.' ·'"'Thejapplicantis ateacherof Artsandwas servingin -1986in Nicosia when she was transferred by a decision of respondent No. 1dated the22nd September, 1986, toLamaca asfromthe 25th1SeptembeΓ,:Ί9'86,.The applicant objected toher aforesaid transfer, but herobjection was dismissed on the16th October, 1986,hencethe presentrecourse. Counsel*forapplicantbasedhiswrittenaddress on the grounds thatthe subjudice decision'is contrary totheLaw; is basedon Regulation's which "are ultravirestheLaw; it was taken undera procedurewhich is unknown'to'thelawcor which had beenan nulled'onthe basisofArticle 146.4'of the Constitution;and thatit iscontrary to*the Regulationsonwhichitwas based: Counsel for applicant in expounding on his legal grounds i argued thatRegulation'14
(2)which determinestheplaceof resi denceof educationalistsfor thepastis ultraviresthe Law, in so far as it is retrospective. Healsoargued thatrespondent No. 1 was never granted thepower toevaluate any of thecriteria for 1261 SavvidesJ. Pilavaki v. TheRepublic
(1988)transfers setoutinRegulation 23
(1).Suchpowerwaspreviously conferred totheCouncilof MinistersonthebasisofRegulation 23
(2)which has been declared bytheCourtsas ultravires the Law, but it was never conferred on respondent No. 1.Counsel alsoarguedthatRegulation24
(3)isalsovulnerablesinceitmakes 5 reference toRegulation 23,paragraph
(2)ofwhichhasbeendeclared asultravirestheLaw.Itishissubmissionthatrespondent No. 1inevaluatingthecriteria setoutinRegulation23
(1)acted outside theLaw and unlawfully. Heargued further that thesub judicedecisiondoesnotcomplywiththetimelimitssetdownby ,Q theRegulationsandthatthetransferoftheapplicant,whichwas effected inSeptember,wasinfactanordinarytransfer andnotan extraordinary oneandassuchitcouldnothavebeeneffected in September. Itisafactthatthesubjudicetransferwaseffected inSeptem- ,5 ber,atatimewhenonlyextraordinarytransfersaremade,asprovided by theRegulations.Thereisnomentionin thesubjudice decision underwhichRegulationitwasmade,butitismadeclear fromthecontentsofthedecisionthatitwasnotanextraordinary butanordinary transfer under Regulation 20for thepurposeof 20 satisfying justified claimsfor transfer byothereducational officers.Thatthetransfer wasanordinaryonehasbeenadmittedby counselfortherespondentswhenthecasewasfixedfor clarifications. Ordinary transfers,accordingtotheRegulations (seeRegula- ^5 tion 24
(6)) shouldbeannouncedin the2ndhalfofMayineach particularyearandshouldtakeeffect asfromthebeginningofthe next school-year. Also,byRegulation25extraordinary transfers areeffected inSeptember.Sincethesubjudicetransfer isnotan extraordinaryoneitshouldhavebeeneffected inMay.Moreover, 30 paragraph4ofthe1985amendingRegulationsstatesthatthe time limits setoutinthoseRegulations willbeindicativefor the first year of theirapplication. (See, also, thecaseofKotsoni v. The Educational Service Commission
(1986)3 C.L.R. 2394, at p.2402).Thismeans,inmyview,thattheyshouldbestrictlyad- 35 hered toin other years.In thiscaseit wasthe2nd yearof their 1262 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 «« Pilavaki v.TheRepublic Savvides J. application and they should Hadbeen adhered to. (See alsothe casesofGeorghiades v.TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R.343; Payiasiv. The Republic
(1987)3 CIl:R/1585, Evangelatos v.The Republic
(1988)3C.L.R.529 inwhich itwas heldthatordinary transferscannot'be effected uhderthedisguise of'extraordihary transfers. Inthecase ofGeorghiades v.TheRepublic (supra) we readthefollowing,atp i ^ o : ^ '-^TM - -*j> "Regulation 25is notintendedtobypasstheordinarypro cedurefor transfers. Itsambitisconfined totheconfermentof power togaugegapsintheeducationalserviceandtherebyaf ford abreathing spacetobridgethemonamorelastingbasis. Examinationof thereasoningofthesubjudicedecision per-' suades me thatthe*respondents did not'exercise their power" within thelimits oftheir discretion under'Reg.'25. They did not address themselves to meeting gaps in the service ona temporarybasisbutextended theirinquiry asiffree atthe be ginning of theyear tocontinuethe process for transfers envis agedby theprecedingregulations. Insodoing they laboured underamisconception as to thenature,ambit and extentof, their powers, a.misconception, that vitiated decision taken ..thereunder, including the-transfer,of the applicant. Conse quently,thesubjudice decisionmustbeannulled." .. -v. Onthebasis oftthe aboveI-find thatthesubjudicedecision has tobeannulled. "" ' / ' : / . ' •-··•'' J u >•*>'."·; ./•• *.*y\. j ' 25 30 , , '· " · Ϊ · · . . : , Ι . . J -*· i . / i h ^ . . . . , ν . - ' \ J i\ ·-•:.. . •_ M*V"P As totheremaining groundsthese have.been dealtuwith and dismissed by mein thecase ofTheophanous v.TheRepublic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1574 .andIsee noreason torepeat them,espe, ciallyin.viewof myfinding as above. Intheresult thisrecourse succeeds andthesubjudice decision is hereby annulledwith noorderfor costs. " Sub'judicedecisionannulled. Noorderas tocosts. 1263