clr/1988/1988_3_1771.pdf

(1988)Discretion ofadministration—Competentorgan rubberstamping decision of Councilof Ministers,whichdidnot havecompetency in the matter— Groundofannulment. Notwithstandingthatapplicantshadpriorityinaccordancewiththelist ofprioritiesmadeinvirtueofReg.5oftheEducationalOfficers (Teaching 5 Personnel)(Appointments,Emplacements,Transfers,PromotionsandRelated Matters) Regulations 1972,as amended by R.A.A.250/74, therespondent Commission appointed on contract for the period 1.9.85 to 30.11.85theinterestedpartiesinaccordancewithadecisionoftheCouncil ofMinistersthatonlythoseeducationalists,whohadservedoncontractfor 10 1984/85,shouldbeappointed. OneoftheissuesthatarosefordeterminationwaswhethertheCommissioncoulddisregardthelistofpriorities,whichwascompiled underReg.5, whichwas,subsequently tothesubjudicedecision,declared ultraviresthe enablinglaw(videSavva v. TheRepublic

(1986)3 C.L.R.445). 15 Held,annullingthesubjudicedecision:

(1)Theadministrationisbound toapplylegislation,onceitisenactedbythecompetentorgan,unlessitis eitherrepealedordeclaredinvalidbyajudicialdecision.Itfollowsthatthe Commission shouldhavecompliedwiththelistofpriorities.

(2)ThematerialbeforetheCourtshowedthatinthiscasetheCommis- 20 sionrubberstampedthedecisionoftheCouncilofMinisters,thedirectives oftheMinistryofEducationandoftheMinisterofEducation,havingfailed toexerciseanydiscretion ortofollow thetableofprioritiesasitwastheir statutorydutytodoso,pursuanttothelawandregulation 10oftheRegulationsof1972. 25 Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Savva v.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R. 445; Kapsou v.TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R.1336; Psara-Kronidouv. TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R. 1900; KyriaHdouv.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.913; 1772 „n 3 C.L.R. Psara · Kronidou v. Republic Psara- Kronidouv. TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R.710; , Papakyriakouv. TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R.

1. Recourses. 5 Recourses against,thedecision of therespondents toappoint, onacontractualbasis, asTeachersofDomesticSciencetheinter­ ested parties from 1.9185 -30.11.85inpreference andinstead of theapplicants. , ( A.S. Angelides, for theapplicants. Chr.loannides, for therespondents. , Λ υ c ,Q -, •.. Cur. adv. vult. • ι CHRYSOSTOMIS Ag. J.read thefollowingjudgment' The applicantsby meansof thepresentrecourses, which wereheard togetherastheypresentcommon questions oflaw andtheyattack thesameadministrative act, seektheannulmentof thedecisionof theRespondentCommissionof 30thAugust,1985,toappointon a contractual basis the interested parties from 1st September, 1985 to30thNovember, 1985» asTeachers ofDomesticScience, inpreference andinstead of theapplicants.Theinterested parties areeight innumberaridtheirnamesappearinthe opposition. Theapplicant.Nelli Psara -Kronidougraduated "Harocopios School"of Athens in
2. InJuly of thesameyear,shewas ap­ pointedaTeacherof Domestic Science andserved-atthe Com­ mercial Lyceum of Famagusta until 1965 when sheresigned. In April, 1980, she applied for re-appointment,and'inJuly, 1983, following anobjection onherpart,shewas re-listed fourthinthe tableofpriorities preparedby the.Ministry ofEducation, pursuant toregulation 5of theEducationalOfficers (TeachingPersonnel) (Appointments,Placements, Transfers, PromotionsandAncillary Matters)Regulations,i1972 as amended(K.D.P.250/74). , 1773 ChrysostomisJ. Psara -Kronidou v.Republic

(1988)TheapplicantReaSymeonidouEliagraduatedthesameschool in 1956.In 1957shewasappointed aTeacherofDomesticScience and served at asecondary school inFamagusta until 1959 when sheresigned. On 12thAugust, 1979,she applied forreappointment.Asfrom 24thMay, 1982,sheislistedfirstintheta- 5 bleofpriorities. FollowingtherenewalofthecontractsofserviceoftheinterestedpartiesinSeptember, 1983,andinJuly,1984,theapplicant Nelli Psara -KronidoufiledRecourses Nos442/83and502/84 andtherelevantdecisionswereannulled. JQ Bethatasitmay,thetwoapplicantswerenotre-appointedon 30th August, 1985,in spite of thefact that allinterested parties werelistedinsubsequentorderthantheapplicants. Theapplicantschallengethesubjudicedecisionmainlyonthe following grounds:

(1)Thattheinterestedpartieswerere-appointed inbreachof therightof theapplicants topriorappointment,emanating from thesaidRegulationsandtableofpriorities.

(2)That thedecision of theRespondent Commission wasnot takenintheexerciseofitsowndiscretion,butitmerelyfollowed 20 adecisionoftheCouncilof MinistersandadirectiveoftheMinistryofEducationandoftheMinisterofEducation. Counselfortherespondentsarguedtothecontraryandhesubmitted thatin view of the subsequent decision ofSawa v.The Republic

(1986)3C.L.R. 445,therespondents had noduty to 25 observe thesaid Regulations andthetableof priorities,assame weredeclaredultravirestheenablinglaw.Hefurther arguedthat inviewofthisdevelopment,theapplicantshavenolegitimateinteresttochallengetheappointments. Ishalldealwith thelastmentioned submissionofcounselfor 30 therespondents.InthecaseofSawav.TheRepublic(supra)the 1774 15 3 C.L.R. Psara - Kronidou v. Republic Chrysostomis J. validity, of the Regulations,came up.for consideration and it is a fact thatjthey^were declared ultravires ^ e n a b l i n g law.^ ..tt . ^ 5 10 15 2Q 25 But can it be said that the RespondentCommission was entit­ led to treat the Regulations ultra vires the relevant legislation, prior to their, annulment by the.Court,,even if they shared the view that.was expressed (iri the subsequent decision of Savva v. The Republic (supra)? My answer is-in the negative and my view is based on Kapsouv. The Republic

(1983)3,C.L.R. 1336 where Triantafyllides, P.;had this to say at pp. 1340 and 1341: ; ,ι ι. 'Before prpceedingjany furthenin this judgment I would like to observe that I am inclined to the view that the respon? ,. dent Commission couldinot, even on advice from the,AttorneyTJGeneral,disregard as invalid trie above referred to regula­ tions

(4),

(7)and the proviso to regulation

(6)which are, in effect,, legislation of adelegated natureenacted under section , 36 oftLaw 33/67. Once such legislation was made by thecom­ petentorgan,;in this instance by theCouncilof Ministers, such legislation has to be complied with until it is repealed by the Council of Ministers (in view of the advice,of the AttorneyGeneralor for any other reason) or.until it is found to be ultra vires by a judicial decision (see, in this respect, inter..alia, Tsoutsos on the Administration and the Law ("Τσούτσου, „. Διοίκησις και Δίκαιον"),

(1979), pp.,41, 88,;89, 99, 116, Manual,,of,, Administrative Law, by .Spiliotopqulos , ("Σπηλιωτοπούλου, ΕγχειρίδιονΛιρικητικού Δικαίου"),

(1977), p. 79 et seq., and Delikostopoulos on Administrative Law ("Δεληκωστοπούλου, Διοικητικών Δίκαιον"),vol. A,

(1972), p. 47 et seq.)". v ; i p j f - r ,, . 0 t .:' c - · 30 35 • • --r:.J, -( j • , < . / • - ' „<V.' ! • * · . . .· , In view of, the.above, thesubmission of counsel for the respondents fails, as the Respondent Commission was bound at the material timetofollow and apply*theprovisions of the said Regulations„that were m force when-the sub judice t decision was tak­ en^haying ( not been repealed or.declared ultra vires by the Court prior to-the.takingof thedecision. (Vide alsoNelli Psara · Kronidou v. The Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. Ϊ900, Kyriakidou v.' The 1775 Chrysostomis J. Psara -Kronidou v. Republic

(1988)Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 913, and Nelli Psara · Kronidou

(1987)3C.L.R.710).Therefore, thecomplaintof thepetitioners as above described is sufficient tocreate for themthe necessary legitimate interest The two main grounds onwhich the applicants rely can be 5 dealt with together. As Ihave already stated, thetwo applicants hadpriority over all interestedpartiesinthetableofprioritiesthat was prepared by virtue of Regulation 5. On26th August, 1985, theMinistry of Education,following adecision of theCouncilof Ministers No.26.102/2.8.85byletter(Appendix A totheopposi- IQ tion),requested therespondents toappointoncontractfrom 1st September, 1985 to30th November, 1985,those educationalists who were serving onacontractual basis during theschool year 1984-85, excluding replacements andwivesofGreekOfficers for which aseparatedecision was takenby theCouncilofMinisters. 1c On 29th August, 1985,theRespondent Commission wrotea letter totheMinisterofEducation (Appendix Βtothewrittenre­ ply of counselfor theapplicants) whichreads asfollows: "θέμα: Διορισμοί εκπαιδευτικώνμε σύμβασηγιατην επάνδρωσητωνσχολείων Μέσης/ΤεχνικήςκαιΔημοτικής 20 εκπαίδευσης. Αναφέρομαι στα έγγραφατου ΥπουργείουΠαιδείας με ημερομηνίες 26/8/85και28/8/85 (φωτοαντίγραφα επι­ συνάπτονται) σχετικά μετοπιοπάνω θέμακαισαςγνω­ στοποιούμετιςαπόψειςτηςΕπιτροπής. 25 Αν σκοπόςτουΥπουργείουΠαιδείαςείναιοδιορισμός των εκπαιδευτικών εκείνων πουυπηρέτησανμεσύμβαση κατάτηνσχολικήχρονιά 1984/85,παρακαλούμεναυπάρ­ ξει σαφήςγραπτήεισήγησηπάνωστοθέμααυτό. Διαφορετικά η Επιτροπή ΕκπαιδευτικήςΥπηρεσίας είναι υποχρεωμένησύμφωνα μετην υπάρχουσα νομοθε­ σία και έχονταςυπόψηπρόσφατησχετική απόφασητου 1776 30 3 C.L.R. Psara -Kronidou v. Republic Chrysostomis J. Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίουναπροχωρήσει στο διορισμό με σύμβαση"τωνδικαιουμένωνμεβάσητονκατάλογοδιορι1 στέων. ' '' ' '' 5 Παρακαλούμεόπωςέχομεαπάντησησαςόσοτοδυνατό •πιογρήγορα ενόψει τουγεγονότος ότιτασχολείαΜέσης -1 εκπαίδευσηςαρχίζουντιςεργασίεςτουςστις2/9/1985! ' AndinEnglish: v.; • .' Ί •-•r; "Subject: Appointments of Educationalists oncontractfor :Ϊ! - theneedsof schoolsof Secoridary-Technicaland /1 "•* ElementaryEducation. • · •' ' it 10 J . ,,.ΊΙ ι. ' . .• ' * ' ; .Ί .1 , . , ι• \ -- - -1refer tothedocumentsof the'Ministry of Educationdated 26/8/85 and29.8.85(photocopiesattached)inconnectionwith , - theabove subject andwe convey toyou theviewsof theCom"•mission. · <\ , · . . ] 15 ο · . . . . · • • If theintentionof theMinistryof Educationis the appoint. mentof those;Educationalists who served oncontractduring the school year Ί984/85, we request that there should be a clear written suggestion onthismatter. ,.:_,· , 20 25 ·.·.•*Otherwise.theEducationalService Commission isboundin accordancewith theexistinglegislation, andbearing inminda recentrelevant decision of theSupreme Court,toproceedto theappointmentoncontractofthose entitled.pnthebasisof,the list of thoseeligible.for appointment { i , „• , —·,· , t j We request tohave yourreply as'soon aspossible, inview of.the fact1that theSecondary Educationschools^commence r ' theirwork on2/9/1985." ' " '* ' ' ' " * : on Onthesameday theMinisterofEducationby aletter inreply (Appendix Β to the opposition) referred1 to thedecision of the Councilof Ministers andsuggested, interaliai theappointmentof the aforementioned educationalists for the said period of three months.'.."<r .• .-;>•.-· 1777 Chrysostomis J. Psara - Kronidou v. Republic

(1988)On 30th August, 1985, theRespondentCommission tookthe subjudice decision andthey appointedtheinterestedparties, in preference andinsteadof the applicants. In thecase of Papakyriakou v.TheRepublic

(1983)3C.L.R. 870, thefacts of which bear direct relevance tothefacts of this 5 case,inthattheRespondentCommissiondisregarded thetableof priorities andgaveeffect toadecision of theCouncilofMinis­ ters, theFullBenchofthisCourtarrived attheconclusionthatthe Council of Ministers in deciding who should be appointed ex­ ceeded their powers, whereas the Respondent Commission by ίο merelyrubberstamping thedecisionoftheCouncilofMinisters, acted contrary totheprovisions of s. 5

(1)of Law 10/69, which empowersthemtomakeappointmentsofeducational officers. Furthermore in Kyriakides v. The Republic (supra)Pikis,J., in annulling the same decision of theRespondentCommission 15 hadthistosay atp.916: "Observance of thepriority safeguarded by theTable was not,inaccordance with theRegulations,amatterofdiscretion; amandatorydutytoimplementitwascastontherespondents. Supposing theyhadadiscretion,theirdecision couldnot again 20 standthetestofjudicial scrutinyintheabsenceofindicationof anyreasons for departuretherefrom." Considering thematerialinthefileandinparticulartheafore­ mentionedcorrespondenceexchanged between theMinistryofEd­ ucation and the Respondent Commission,Ihave arrived atthe conclusionthattheRespondent Commissioninappointingthe in­ terestedpartiesrubberstampedthedecisionoftheCouncilofMin­ isters, thedirectives of theMinistryof Educationandof the Minsiter of Education,having failed toexerciseanydiscretion orto follow thetableofprioritiesasitwas theirstatutorydutytodoso, 30 pursuanttothelaw andregulation 10oftheRegulationsof 1972. Foralltheabovereasons thesubjudicedecisionconcerningall 1778 3 C.L.R. Psara -Kronidou v. Republic ChrysostomisJ. interested parties isannulled. Therewillbe no orderastocosts. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderasto costs. < ; -J '-, • «Vi. 7 .·. ' ' '~VC' ' r.v .4.." \< . 1Γ •* Η , ' * •;,\oS- • ' -i J.t .. ' Λ , , ^ ,. -* , 0 1 T' Ti.r.,-· . < , . ι •; . · - - > . . · , , . .-· .no I- _^ ι w > . v. ; \ t • \\ . • · .y •' .. , , Ι , ί *ί» f . I ' l l . J" t«< 1779 t. 1 > > , ^ o . ' 1*