(1988)1988July14 [SAVVIDES,J.] INTHEMATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECONSTITUTION DORAROSSIDOU, Applicant, ν THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH 1.THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMSION, 2.THEMINISTRYOFEDUCATION, Respondents. (CaseNo. 651186). EducationalOfficers—Transfers—Ordinarytransfers—Shouldbeeffecteddur ing the secondhalfof Mayof eachyearandshouldtakeeffectasfromthe beginningof the nextschoolyear(Reg.24
(6)of the relevantRegulations) —As the subjudicetransfer is anordinaryone and was taken in Septem ber, 1986,it has tobeannulled. 5 Thefactof thiscasesufficiently appearinthejudgmentof theCourt. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Costsagainstrespondents. Casesreferredto: Kotsoni v.EducationalServiceCommission
(1986)3CX.R. 2394; Pilavakiv.TheRepublic
(1988)3OUR. 1260; Georghiades v.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.343; 1420 10 3<C.L.R. Rossidou v. Republic l·Payiasiv.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 1585; - " .• it: i' ., ι ·_ yEvangelatosv.TheRepublic(\9SS){iC.L.R.529;. ,,,-,u . - ;, Theophanousv'.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R.'l
- Recourse. .^Recourse,against the.decisionoftherespondentstoinclude ap plicantinthelistofeducationalists subjecttotransfer andtransfer herpartly toPedhoulas. . , , . , . ·, .I r . r A. S. Angelides, forapplicant. , , '•**« , A.Vassiliades, for the.respondents. 10, ' "t'l , v:o'i * .· j · · , 1 ., • , .' . \r Γ"· \ >z * Η ί , · Ϊ . : ·--' ... • Cur. adv.vult. .., 1' **ι JUI'- • Λ'.ί.^Λ?· c . . · . ...,; . / ' . i . l *;;•(·.· , : • ' • • . , ' V V '· . " . '** ' 'ΜΓ : ι.- • • ·\Λ; „ SAVyiDES, J. read the following judgment. The applicant praysforadeclarationthatthedecision oftherespondentstoin-' t ., i t . · •) ,• % · , ι .]'(# - ι . • -' i.r> *ft ; f . eludetheapplicantinthelistofeducationalists subject to transfer and^transfer herpartly toPedhoulasisnullyoi'd'andofnolegal J * effect.' . , .' / ' ' '7" . . -'.- > -\ , ··. .·: " " TheapplicantisateacherofdomesticscienceintheSecondary Educationandwas first appointedin.
- In1986 shewas serving inf,the Gymnasium of Strovolos A,vwherefcshe.was posted since
- InFebruaryi'1986, she filled inaform stating that •'* shedidnotwishtobetransferred forfamily reasons! >, *· • "r .Respondent 1,atits,meeting of 12thSeptember, 1986,decid ed'to transfer theapplicantpartly to'PedhoulasGymnasium '.'in'" accordance,with theprovisions ofRegulation 20(a)onthebasis of.the.orderonthelistofthosesubject.to transfer (Reg.24
(4))".'" ".Theapplicantobjected to theabove decision on groundsof health,andattachedtoherobjection acertificate from herdoctor. , Respondent 1 atits-meeting ofthe22ndSeptember, 1986, reject-' 1421 SavvidesJ. Rossidou v. Republic
(1988)ed her objection. The applicant objected again on grounds of healthandhercasewasreferred totheMedicalBoardforitsopinion.Respondent 1 metagainonthe11thOctober, 1986,andhavingreconsidered herobjection in thelightof theopinionofthe Medical Board,rejected itagain.Asaresultthepresentrecourse g was filed. Thegroundsoflawraisedinthepresentcasearethatthesub judicedecision iscontrary totheLawand theRegulations,that the Regulationsonwhich itisbasedareultravires.theLaw,and thattheprocedurefollowedisnotaproperone. 10 In expounding on his legal grounds counsel for applicant arguedthatRegulation 14
(2)ofthe1985Regulations,whichdeterminestheplaceofresidenceofeducationalistsisultraviresthe Law in sofar as it isretrospective.Healsoargued thatrespondent 1was never granted the power toevaluate thecriteria for j ^ transfer setoutin Regulation 23
(1)andrespondent 1 inevaluating suchcriteria actedoutside theLaw.Itwasalsothesubmissionofcounselthatthesubjudicedecisiondoesnotcomplywith thetimelimitssetdown bytheRegulationsandthatthe transfer oftheapplicant,whichwaseffected inSeptember,wasinfactan yr\ ordinary transfer and not an extraordinary one and as such it couldnothavebeeneffected inSeptember. The transfer of theapplicant waseffected in September, ata timewhenonlyextraordinarytransferscanbeeffected, asprovided by theRegulations. Itismadeclearfrom thecontentsof the *s subjudicedecisionthatthetransferoftheapplicantwasmadeundertheprovisionsofRegulation20(a)onthebasisoftheorderof priority for transfer asprovidedbyRegulation 24
(4).Thisisan ordinary transfer, the procedure for which is contemplated by Regulation24ofthe 1985Regulations,settingdowncertaintime limits. Thus ordinary transfers should, in accordance with the provision of Regulation 24
(6),beannounced inthesecondhalf ofMayineachparticularyearandshouldtakeeffect asfromthe following September.Onlyextraordinary transferscanbeeffected in September when extraordinary andunforseen educational 35 1422 3 C.L.R. 5 10 2Q 25 ...Rossidou v. Republic SavvidesJ. needs call for them. The sub judice t r a n s f e r r i n g an ordinary one.jShould have been effected in May,and notan,September.-I taketiu^view because^f paragraph 4 of the 1985Lamending:Regulations which makes the time limits set out in the Regulations as indicative for the first year of their application, which means, in my ,view,4hat they.should ( be strictly.adheredjto.in other, years. (See the case of Kotsoni v.The Educational Service Commission
(1986)3 C.L.R, 2394, at p.2402). " The same,issue^was t considered by me in the recent case of Uda Pilavaki v. The Republic
(1988)3 C.L.R. 1260 in which I followed the cases of Georghiades v. The Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 343;Payiasi v. The Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1585 and Evangelatos v. The Republic
(1988)3 C.L.R.
- In those casesit was held that ordinary transfers cannot be effected under the disguise of extraordinary transfers. In this respect I may cite a passage from thecase of Georghiades v.The Republic (supra) at p. 346: "Regulation 25 is not intended to bypass the ordinary procedure for transfers. Its ambit is confined to the conferment of power to gauge gaps in the educational service and thereby afford a breathing space tobridge them on a more lasting basis. 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 Reg.
- They did not address themselves to meeting gaps in the service on a temporary basis but extended their inquiry as if free at the beginning of the year tocontinue the process for transfers envisaged by the preceding regulations. In so doing they laboured under a misconception as to the nature, ambit and extent of their powers, a misconception that vitiated decision taken thereunder, including the transfer of the applicant." On the basis of the above I find that the sub judice decision must be annulled. 1423 SavvidesJ. Rossidouv.Republic
(1988)InviewofmyfindingIfinditunnecessarytodealwiththeremaining grounds, which,in any way,havebeendealt withand dismissed bymein thecaseofTheophanousv.Republic
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1574. Intheresulttherecoursesucceedsandthesubjudicedecision 5 isherebyannulled withnocosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. 1424