clr/1988/1988_3_529.pdf

(3)(a) and12—The nature oftheprovisionsofReg.12 aremandatory— The priority list hasto bestrictlyfollowed—Anextra-ordinary transfer should, inanyevent, beofashortduration. HavingbeenpromotedtothepostofAssistantHeadmasterSecondary Education,theapplicantwastransferred toLimassolinvirtueofReg. 8

(1)of theaforesaidRegulationsasfrom 1.9.87. 10 However,on9.10.87theCommissiondecidedtotransfer the applicant toAgios. Thistransfer was madeunderReg. 15

(1)*ofthesameRegula­ tions.Thisregulationgovernsextra-ordinary transfers. Itmustbenotedthat:(a)Theapplicantwasonthebasisofhisunitsun­ derReg. 12

(2)lastbutoneinthepriority listspecified inReg. 12, and (b) thecircumstances weresuchastoindicatethatthesaid transfer toAgios wouldnotbeforashortduration. Held, annulling the subjudice decision:

(1)Under Reg. 15 extra­ ordinary transfers shouldbeeffected onthebasisofthepriority listspeci*Quotedatp. 533post. 529

(1988)Evangelatos v. Republic fied inReg. 12.The wordingof Reg. 12

(1)ismandatory. It mattersnot thatthedifference intheunitsbetweenpersonsinthelistisminimal.Asthe subjudice transfer was madeincontravention of thelist,ithastobeannulled.

(2)Though thewordingofReg. 15isnotdiesameasthatof Reg.25 5

(2)oftheEducatinal Officers (TeachingPersonnel) (Appointments,Postings,Transfers,PromotionsandRelatedMatters)(Amending)Regulations, 1985(71/85),theobject ofReg. 15is thesameasthatofReg.25

(2)and, consequently, inthelightof thecaselawconcerning theinterpretationof Reg.25

(2)anextra-ordinary transfer underReg.15 shouldbeofshortdu- 10 ration.Asthesubjudice transfer isnotof such duration, ithastobeannulledforthisreasonloo. Subjudicedecisionannulled. Noorderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 15 Georghiadesv.TheRepublic

(1987)3C.L.R.343; Miltiades v. TheRepublic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 772;. Payiasi v. TheRepublic

(1987)3 C.L.R.1585. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondent to transfer applicant from Limassol to Agros Gymnasium. A. S. Angelides, for the applicant. R. Vrahimi -Petridou (Mrs.), for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. A. LOIZOU J. read the following judgment. The applicant was at the material time a secondary educational Schoolmaster serving at Mitsis School Lemythou. Following his promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster the respondent Educational Service Commission, by means of itsdecision dated the 5th August 530 25 3C.L.R. Evangelatos v. Republic A. LoizouJ. 1987 (Exhibit2),- decidedtotransfer himtoLimassol fromMit­ sis SchoolLemythou with effect from IstSeptember 1987.The relevantdecisionreads: 5 lO 15 20 "TheCommissiontaking intoconsiderationtheprovisions of theEducationalOfficers (Postings, Moves and Transfers) Regulations, 1987 andonthebasisof thepriority,ofthose af­ fected, in the relevant lists, it decides that the following Schoolmasters whohavebeenpromotedtothepostofAssist­ ant Schoolmaster of Secondary Education Schools betransferred outside theirseat in accordancewith theprovisions of Reg.8

(1).TheCommissiontakesintoconsiderationtheneeds of the schools in Assistant Headmasters as same have been dispatched by theMinistry of Education by means ofdocu­ mentNo.520/87dated20th June,

1. Mr. Evangelatos Andreas - theapplicant- whowasserving atMitsis SchoolLemythou is transferred from 1stSeptember 1987,tohisseatatLimassol onthebasisof theprejudiceunits hehas." ' ~~ Onthe 9thOctober 1987,the Commissiontookthefollowing decision.(SeeB.): "Secondary Education.
2. Transfers. 25 30 TheCommission having inmindtheEducational Officers (Postings, Moves andTransfers) Regulations, 1987 andthe listof applicantsandthoseliable totransfer which havebeen preparedwith theassistanceof theDataProcessing and Com­ puterService onthebasisof theUnitComputationofthe crite­ ria(see Minutesof 11thJuly 1987),decides tomakethefol­ lowingextra - ordinary (έκτακτες) transfers of Schoolmasters for thefilling ofeducationalneedswitheffect from 10th October 1987 531 A.LoizouJ. Evangelatosv.Republic

(1988)AssistantHeadmasterEvangelatosAndreas-theapplicantwhohas beenpromoted tothepostof Assistant Headmaster witheffectfromthe 1stSeptember 1987istransferred byvirtueofRegulation8

(1)fromLimassoltoAgros.Thetransferof Mr.Evangelatosisdecidedonthebasisof theprejudiceunits 5 hehasandbytakingintoconsideration thatatAgrosGymnasiumtheHeadmaster isaSchoolmaster ofCommercial SubjectsandtheAssistantHeadmasterisaSchoolmasterofmathematicsand soit isadvisabletopostanAssistant Headmaster whoisaPhilologist." Asagainst this transfer which waseffected by means of the abovedecisiontheapplicant submittedanobjection,bothpersonallyandthroughhiscounsel.TheCommissiondealtwiththeobjectionatitsmeetingof 15thOctober 1987(AppendixC),andits relevantdecisionreads: 10 15 "TheCommission takescognizanceoftheobjection ofAssistantHeadmasterMr.AndreasEvangelatosaswellashisobjection which wassubmitted through hiscounsel,andhaving consideredthematter,decidesasfollows: Thetransfer ofMr.Evangelatos wasdecided(seeMinutes 20 of9thOctober 1987)on thebasisofRegulation 15oftheEducationalOfficers (Postings,MovesandTransfers) Regulations 1987forthefillingofeducationalneeds.Mr.Evangelatoswas liabletobetransferred outsidehisseatonthebasisofRegulation8

(1)giventhathehasbeenpromotedtothepostofAssist- 2 5 ant Headmasterwitheffect from 1stSeptember 1987andin hiscasetheydonotcomeintoplaytheprerequisitesofRegulation 11

(1)oftheaboveRegulationsforhisnon-transferoutsidehisseat. Inviewoftheabovehisobjection isdismissed." Asaresulttheapplicantfiled thepresentrecourseonthe29th October 1987,whereby hechallengesboththedecisiontotransfer himasaboveandthedecisiontodismisshisobjection. 532 30 3C.L.R. 5 Evangelatosv.Republic A.LoizouJ. Sincewehaveitclearly stated intheaforequoted decisionof 15thOctober 1987,that the subjudice transfer waseffected by virtueofRegulation 15

(1)oftheEducationalOfficers (Postings, MovesandTransfers) Regulations, 1987,(hereinafter tobereferred toas"theRegulationsof 1987")itisconsidered advisable toquoteRegulation 15.Itreads: "15

(1)TheCommission bymeansof areasoned decision maymakeextra-ordinary transfers ofeducational officers in thefollowinginstances: 10 (a) In the course of the school year when the transfer is considered absolutelyindispensable intheinterestof theservice; (b)Forthefilling ofneedswhichemanatedafter the finalizationoftheordinary transfers. 15

(2)TheCommissioneffects theextra-ordinarytransfersreferredinsub-paragraph (b)ofparagraph

(1)ofthisRegulation onthebasisoftheprioritywhichisspecified inRegulation12 and the list which is prepared in accordance with subparagraph(a)ofparagraph

(3)ofRegulation 13." : ' 20 Now subparagraph (a)of paragraph

(3)of Regulation 13 of the"Regulationsof 1987"whichisreferred tointheaforequoted Regulation 15

(2)reads: "3. The Commission considers the applications and the formsandwithinthesecondfortnightofAprilprepares. 25 30 (a) Alist of theeducational officers who are liable tobe transferred underRegulation9accordingtopostandseatand inthecaseofsecondaryeducationschoolmastersaccordingto thespecialization,onthebasisofthepriorityspecified inRegulation12." . y Regulation 12referredtoabovesofarasrelevantprovides: 533 A.LoizouJ. Evangelatosv.Republic

(1988)"12

(1)The Commission in effecting transfers in accordancewithRegulations8,9 and 10andwhereveritisexpressly provided in these Regulations shall follow a priority list which will be determined by the following criteria, , 5

(2)The weight of each of thecriteria referred toinparagraph

(1)ofthisRegulationisdetermined bytheCommission inadvancebyvirtueofapolicydecisionandbymeansofUnit Computationofthecriteria." UndertheunitComputation of thecriteria,asprovidedinthe io aforequoted Regulation 12

(2), in respect of eleven Assistant Headmasters -four with Limassol astheir seat and seven with Nicosiaastheirseat-applicanthad33.6units,anotherAssistant Headmasterhad35.6unitsandtheremainingninehadlessunits thantheapplicant. 15 UnderRegulation 15

(2)extraordinary transfers had tobe effectedonthebasisoftheprioritylistwhichisspecified byRegulation 12,and therespondent Commission was bound to actin accordancewithsuchpriorityhst.Sincetherefore undersuchprioritylist theapplicant wasthelast butone,outof eleven educa- 20 tionalists who was liable to be transferred the respondents by transferringhimactedcontrarytotheexpressprovisionsofRegulations 15

(2)and 12and for thisreason thesubjudicedecision must be annulled as being contrary toLaw, namely the above Regulations. «s Icannotinthisrespectacceptthecontentionoflearnedcounsel for therespondents to the effect that for minimal difference in unitsthereshouldnotbesacrificed theeducational needsandeducationalbenefit.ThisissobecausethewordingofRegulation 12

(1)isinmyopinion,mandatory.Hadthelegislatorintendeditto ™ beotherwiseitwouldhavesaidsobyexpresswords. Moreover,thesubjudicedecisionmustbeannulledforanotherreason.Byreadingthesubjudicedecisionitisclearthatappli534 3 C.L.R. Evangelatos v.Republic A.Loizou J. cant'stransfer wasnotmadetolastfor a shortduration. Regarding the nature of an extra -ordinary transfer PikisJ. , stated the following inthecase of Georghiades v.TheRepublic

(1987)3CL.R. 343atp.346:5 10 15 2Q "Such transfers should necessarily beof shortduration lasting nolonger than necessary toenabletheparties tomeet the needsof education on amore lasting basis within thecontext of the powers vested in them by the regulations preceding Reg.25.Regulation 25isnot intended tobypasstheordinary procedure fortransfers. Itsambitisconfined tothe conferment of power togaugegapsintheeducational service and thereby afford abreathing space tobridgethem on amorelasting basis. Examination of thereasoningof thesubjudicedecision persuades me that the respondents did not exercise their power within the limits of their discretion under Reg. 25.They did not address themselves to meeting gaps in the service on a temporary basis butextended their inquiry asif free atthebeginningof the yeartocontinue theprocessof 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 decisions taken there under, including the transfer of the applicant. Consequently,thesubjudicedecision must be annulled." Regulation 25,which isquoted above,isRegulation 25of the Educational officers (Teaching Personnel) (Appointments, Posting, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) (Amending) Regulationsof 1985(not.71/85).Itreadsas follows: •j 0 "The Commission by means of a reasoned decision may makeextraordinary transfers of educational officers in thefolowinginstances:(a) During the month of September and before the com- 535 A.Loizou J. Evangelatos v.Republic

(1988)mencement of the lessonsifextraordinary and unforeseen educationalneeds sodictate." The Georghiades case was followed by Kourris J. ,in Miltiades v. The Republic

(1987)3 C.L.R. 772 and by Savvides J. inPayiasi v.The Republic,

(1987)3C.L.R. 1585. 5 Though Regulation 15

(1)of the 1987 Regulations and the above Regulation 25 of the 1985 are not similarly worded their object asemanating from their wording isthe same; and thus the principleenunciated by PikisJ., intheGeorghiadescase applies in thiscase too. Therefore the subjudice decision must be an- 10 nulled for thereasons stated in the Georghiadescase namely because the respondents laboured under a misconception as to the relativeambit andextent oftheirpowers. In the result the recourse succeeds but in the circumstances therewillbenoorderastocosts. Subjudice decisionannulled. Noorderas to costs. 536 15