(1988)1988February26 [LOWS,I] INTHEMAITEROFARTICLE146OFTHECONSTITUTION COSTASPAPANTONIOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYRPUS,THROUGH THEEDUCATIONALSERVICECOMMISSION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 765185). Recoursefor annulment—Revocation ofsubjudice act—Recourse has to be examined on its merits,despitethe revocation, if therevokedacthas broughtaboutconsequencesinrelationtowhich,iftheapplicantissuccessful,hemightbeentitledtoredressunderArt. 146.6oftheConstitution. EducationalOfficers—Transfers—The EducationalOfficers(Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Postings,Transfers, Promotions andRelated Matters) (Amendment) Regulations 71185,Reg. 23
(1)—Ultra viresenabling law— Aristidesv.Republic
(1986)3CL.R.466, adopted. Thefactsofthiscasesufficiently appearinthejudgmentofthe Court Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: Aristidesv.Republic
(1986)3CL.R.466; Kyrialddes v.Republic,1 R.S.C.C.66; 320 1„ 3 CL.R. Papantoniou v. Republic Malliotisv. TheMunicipalityofNicosia
(1965)3CJL.R. 75; Christodoulides v.Republic
(1978)3 CL.R.193; Hapeshisv. Republic
(1979)3CL.R.550; Kittou v.Republic
(1983)3CL.R.605; Agrotisv.Republic
(1983)3 CL.R. 1397; Kampis v.Republic
(1984)1 CL.R.314; Anastasiades&Othersv.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R. 312; KikasandOthersv.Republic
(1984)3C.L.R.852; Payiatasv. Republic
(1984)3 CL.R.1239; 10 Salemv. TheRepublic
(1985)3 CL.R.453; Vakis v. Republic
(1985)3CL.R.534; Philippides& Son v.Republic
(1985)3CL.R.2588; Evlogimenosv. Republic
(1986)3C.L.R. 2042. ^ Recourse. RecourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttotransferapplicantfromNicosiatoLarnaca. A. Haviaras,for theapplicant A. VassiliadeSyfor therespondent. 20 Cur. adv.vult. LORIS J.read thefollowing judgment. Theapplicant in the 321 Loris J. Papantoniou v.Republic
(1988)present recourse, aSecondary Education Schoolmaster, challengesthedecision of theRespondent Educational ServiceCommissiondated 9.8.85totransfer him from Nicosia toLarnaca. It wascommon ground thatinreaching at thesub-judice decision the Respondent E.S.C. relied on regulation 23
(1)of the E- 5 due.tional Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Postings, Tran: ers,Promotions andRelated Matters) (Amendment) Regulation .1985 (see No.71 inPart Iof theThird Supplement to the Official Gazette of the 22nd February 1985) to be referred to herein below asRegulations71/85). Regulations 71/85 weredeclared ultra vires the enabling Law inAristides v.Republic
(1986)3 CL.R.
- Following the decision intheAristides case (supra) the Attorney -General of the Republic advised the Respondent E.S.C to revoke the sub-judice decision; theE.S.C. acting inpursuance of such advicerevoked the sub-judice transfer by meansof itsdecision dated 23.4.
- 15 Learned counsel for applicant submitted that theapplicant was entitled tojudgment on themerits,inspiteof therevocation of the sub-judice decision, as allegedly theadministrative actinquestion 20 has produced detrimental results to him before ceasing to be effective, for which hewasentitled tocompensation. Itiswell settled thatdespite therevocation of an administrative act arecourse has to be examined on its merits if the sub-judice decision revoked has brought about consequences in relation to 25 which, if the applicant is successful in therecourse hemight be entitled toredress under Article 146.6of theConstitution(Kyriahides v. Republic, 1R.S.C.C. 66,Malliotis v. The Municipality of Nicosia
(1965)3 CL.R. 75 at p. 94, Christodoulides v. Republic
(1978)3 CL.R. 193, Hapeshis v. Republic
(1979)3 3 0 C.L.R. 550, Kittou v.Republic
(1983)3 CL.R. 605,Agrotis v. Republic
(1983)3 CL.R. 1397, Kampis v. Republic
(1984)1 CL.R. 314, Anastassiades & others v. Republic,
(1984)3 322 10 3 CX.R. 5 10 15 Papantoniou v.Republic Loris J. CUR. 312,Kikas and Othersv.Republic
(1984)3CL.R. 852, Payiatas v.Republic
(1984)3 CL.R. 1239, Salem v. The Republic
(1985)3 CL.R. 453,Vakis v.Republic
(1985)3 CL.R. 534, Philippides & Son v.Republic
(1985)3 CL.R. 2588, Evlogimenou v.Republic
(1986)3CL.R. 2042). Having examined the submission of learned counsel in the light of the above authorities, Ihavecome totheconclusion that the sub-judice decision which was recalled as late as 23.4.86 might entitle the applicant toredress under Article 146.6 of the Constitution, if he was successful in the present recourse. So I heard further argument onthemerits. It isabundantly clear that the sub-judice decision was mainly basedon Regulation 23of Regulations71/85 which wasdeclared tobe ultravirestheenabling enactment in theAristides caseand Evlogimenou case(supra). In line with the above decisions, the reasoning of which I adopt, I hold theview that the saidregulations are ultra vires the enabling enactment. 20 In theresult thesubjudicedecision ishereby declared nulland devoid of anylegal effect. Let there benoorderastocosts. Sub judice decision annulled. No orderas tocosts. 323