clr/1988/1988_3_1951.pdf

(1986)3 CM.R. 913 ' · · ' ' ** "' ' ""* • " " • ' · - " " ' -, ' ·- "* ' T ' '' ' <j. The facts of this case appear sufficiently in theJudgment of theCourt. - , , . 10 • Casesreferredto: Subjuiuce decisionannulled. Noorderas to costs. „ . i J- . w .- ., ' ',. ' . : , Kyriakidou v.Γ/w fe/wMic

(1986)3C.L.R. 913.' Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionof therespondentstoappoint on .»r contract for theyears,1985-1986 theinterestedpartiestothepost 1951 * ; Hadjicharalambous v.Republic

(1988)of Instructress inGoldsmithingandSilversmithing in preference andinsteadoftheapplicant. A. Angelides, for the applicant. R.Petridou (Mrs.)* for therespondents. Cur. adv.vult. 5 PAPADOPOULOS J. read the following judgment. By the presentrecoursetheapplicantseeks: (a)Adeclarationof theCourtthattherefusal and/oromission of therespondents to appoint heron contract tothepost of In­ structress in Goldsmithing and Silversmithing is null and void \Q andof noeffect whatsoever andthatwhat was omittedoughtto bedone. (b)Adeclarationof theCourtthattheactand/ordecisionofthe respondents No. 1toappointoncontractinterested partyfor the years 1985-1986instead of herself,is nullandvoidandof noef- ^ feet whatsoever, (c)A declarationof theCourtthattheomission of therespon­ dents toreinstate and/orappointoncontracttheapplicant and/or tocomply with thedecisions of theSupremeCourttothe recour­ ses 412/80and384/81is contrarytoLaw. 20 Thefacts of thecase areas follows: Theapplicant between theyears 1964-1973, didatfirstherap­ prenticeship and then worked as goldsmith, silversmith, atthe work-shop of Mr. Constantinides in Nicosia, and between the years 1973-1976she worked onherown. FromSeptember 1966 «ς toJune 1970 sheattendedacycleoflessonsof theapprenticeship Scheme organized by the Ministry of Labour and Social Insu­ ranceanduponitssuccessful completionshewas awarded acer­ tificate of specialization in silversmithing/goldsmithing. Theapplicantwas appointedonaspecial contracttothe postof 30 1952 ' 3 C.L.R. 5 .Hadjicharalambous v. Republic Papadopoulos,J. instructress in goldsmithing/silversmithing at the Technical School of Nicosiafor eight periods per week asfrom.the6thOc­ tober 1976 andat theProfessional School Larnaca with ten peri­ ods per week as from the 28th February 1977. This special contract of the applicant- was renewed' successively 'for full engagement as from 3rd October 1977 to the 31st August 1978, from 19th'Octoberto31st July 1979, andfrom2nd October Ϊ979 till 31st August 1980,, ' InAugust 1985 theCouncilof Ministers'decided torenew the engagement of teachers who hadbeen working with theMinistry on contractualbasis prior tothe years 1984-1985. This decision was communicated,tothe Public Service Commission with the suggestion,to give effect toit.TheEducationalService Commis­ sion proceeded to the,appointment of a number,,of persons. 15 Among them in the post of goldsmithing and silversmithing in• structress,.they appointed the interested party and not the appli­ cant. Thedecision-of the Educational Service Commission re­ garding these appointments, following the-suggestion of the Ministerial Council,has beendeclared null andvoid in anumber 20 of otherrecourses by otherapplicants.With all respect,lean add nothing usefurto thejudgment of Justice Pikis in thecase of Ky• riakidou v. TheRepublic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 913, atpp. 917, 918, 919, whichT adopt.Hehadthis tosay about thesubjudice deci­ sion of theMinisterial Councilwhich'affected theapplicantinthat 25 recourse butwhichdecision-was inconsequenceof the same state ™ -" % "The Council of Ministers decided on 2.8.85 to renew the appointment for the ensuing school year of educationalists who were contractually employed in the educational service ( prior tothe school year 1984-85. Thedecision was passed on to theEducationalService Commission by theMinistry, cou­ pled with a suggestion togiveeffect toit. Study of the events preceding.and surrounding thedecision leaves nodoubtthatin taking the'sub judice decision the resppndents'.did(no more than give;*effect to the decision of the Council of Ministers. j 'They appointedeveryone covered by thedecision of the Coun­ cil of Ministers.Theyrelinquished in effect theexercise of the .1953 Papadopoulos J. Hadjicharalambous v. Republic

(1988)discretionary powersvestedthem bylaw(Law 10/69),making them the sole vestees of thepower to appoint teachers in the public educational service The solereason for departing therefrom (theregulations) appeared tobetherecommendations of theMinistry of Education. And thisis,asearlier noted,anadditional reason for annulling their 5 decision. Every administrative Authority vested with theexerciseof discretionary powersmust,asacondition of thevalidityofitsdecision, themselves assume theexerciseof thepower andexercise iteffectively byreference tothecriteria setout in \Q thelaw and theprinciplesof sound administration. Subordination of theexercise of theirpower, asithappened in thiscase, necessarily invalidatestheirdecision foritisnotadecision emanating from the organ specified by law. And as such, it is vulnerable to be set asidefor both abuseof power, as wellas 15 excessof power. The lawdid not entrust eithertheCouncilof MinistersortheMinistry ofEducation with theappointmentof teachers in the Public Educational Service.The power vested solelyandexclusively intheEducational Service Commission. Invalidity istheinevitableconsequence attending abdicationor 20 surrender of administrativediscretion.Thisismade abundantlyclearby the numerousdecisionsof theSupreme Court.Specific reference need only be made to a decision of the Full Bench, that inPapakyriacou v.Republic, bearing direct relevance to the facts of thepresent case. In that case as well, the 25 respondents disregarded tables of priority in order togive effect to a decision of the Council of Ministers. The decision was declared invalid for exceeding their powers. The Court noted that respondents instead of holding an inquiry into the suitability of candidates inaccordance with statutory criteria, theyconfined theirtask toapproving thedecisionof theCouncil of Ministers; as indeed they appeared to have done in this case.The fate of thedecision hereunderreview,cannotbeany different. Forthereasons given above,thedecision isannulled." 35 For the above stated reasons, the subjudice decision is annulled and there will benoorderas tocosts. Subjudice decisionannulled. No orderas to costs. 1954