3 C.L.R. 1988March19 [LORIS,J.] EMTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146OFTHECOSTTTUTION ANDRIANIP. SOLOUKKIDOU, Applicant, v. THEREPUBLICOFCYPRUS,THROUGH THEMINISTER OFEDUCATION, Respondent. (CaseNo. 323/86). 5 Administrative Act—Compositeadministartiveact—Whenthefinalactistaken,previous acts(which coulduntilthenbe challengedseparatelybyarecourse)loosetheirexecutorycharacterandcannotthereafterbe challenged separately—By challenging the final act, the whole composite action is deemed as challenged—Transfer of educational officer—Recourse challenging thepreparatoryactawarding totheofficerunitsaffectinghertransfer—After the final act of transfer,the decision lost its executory character—Recoursedismissed. Thefacts ofthiscasesufficiently appear inthejudgmentoftheCourt. 10 Recoursedismissed. No orderas tocosts. Casesreferredto: Papadopoulos v.TheRepublic
(1983)3C.L.R.1423; CaramondaniBros. Ltd. v.TheRepublic
(1987)3C.L.R. 156; - 15 Mitidou v. CYTA
(1982)3 C.L.R.555; - loannou v.EAC
(1981)3C.L.R.280; Prezas andAnother v.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.2525. 577 Soloukkidou v. Republic
(1988)Recourse. Recourse foradeclaration that thedecision of the respondent toestimateandconsider thedistancebetween theseatofapplicant and her place of work during the school years from 1.9.63 1.4.65 and from 1.4.65 - 31.8.65 at 34and20mils respectively 5 isnullandvoid andofnoeffect whatsoever. M.Eliades,fortheapplicant. R. Vrahimi -Petridou (Mrs),forthe respondent. Cur. adv. vult. LORIS J.read thefollowing judgment. Applicant isandwas at all material times an Elementary School teacher; shecomes from Eftakomi village in theFamagusta District andduring the school years 1.9.63- 1.4.65shewasposted andshewasserving at Rizokarpaso village; from 1.4.65- 31.8.65 shewasservingat Yialoussa village; during theschool years 1.9.65 - 31.8.69 she was serving atKatoVarossia. *• During theperiod 1974- 1978shewasserving, being adisplaced person,atLimassol whilstherseatwasstill Famagusta. During theyears 1978- 1985wasserving atAcropolis NicosiaandherseatwasStrovolos-Lakatamia. 2 On 22.8.85 theapplicant applied forthereconsideration ofthe unitswhich hadbeen allowed toherforthepurposesoftheregulations governing transfers. (VideBlue85inherpersonal file). On 23.9.85 a letter wasadressed totheapplicant bythecompetent authority in virtue of s. 39
(2)of Law 10/69(which was « still inforce astherelevant amendment waseffected byvirtueof s. 8ofLaw 65/87)byvirtueofwhich shewasinformed thatshe wasbeingtransferred toDhalivillage. 578 3 C.L.R. 5 ,Q ,c Soloukkidou v.Republic Loris J. The applicant lodged an objection for her aforesaid transfer, and after theexchangeof several lettersbetween theapplicantand competent authority aletter wasaddressed totheapplicant byrespondent dated 6.3.86 (Blue 96) informing her that respondent entertained partof herobjections withregard tothe unitsasaforesaid, which havebeen allowed toherfor thepurposes of theregulations governing transfers; in the aforesaid letter it was stated interalia thatthedistance from Eftakomi toRisokarpaso and from Eftakomi to Yialoussa village was computed at 34and 20 miles respectively. Bymeansof thesaid letterapplicant wasfurther informed that during the school years 1.9.65- 31.8.69 her seat was considered tohave been, K. Varossia. Applicant feeling aggrieved filed thepresent recourse praying for (A)adeclaratoryjudgment totheeffect that thedecision of the respondent toestimate and consider thedistance between theseat of applicant and her place of work during the school years from 1.9.63- 1.4. 65and from 1.4.65- 31.8.65 at 34 and 20 miles respectively setout in theletter of theapplicant dated 6.3.86 isnull anddevoid of any legal effect whatsoever. 2^ (B) Adeclaratoryjudgment totheeffect thattherefusal and/or omission of the respondent to approve and accept the service of the applicant at Kato Varossia Elementary School during the school years 1965 - 1969 as service outside her seat for the purposesof crediting units, isnull anddevoid of any legal effect. 2<r Learned counsel acting for applicants in his written address asserted the following: 30 Respondent relying on hiserroneous and misconceived judgment considered that the applicant had a lesser number of units than the actual onesand asaresult shewaseventually transferred to a school outside her seat. From the above statement of facts which emanates from theapplicant herself, itisclear that in taking the decision to transfer applicant, the number of units as above was taken intoconsiderationin reaching at thedecision for transfer. It is therefore clear that the transfer stated by the applicant 579 ] ,s J. Soloukkidou v. Republic
(1988)wa&reachedatintwo stages;thefirst one which was actuallythe computationoftheunits(basedondistances)andtheaction taken thceunder,thatis thetransfer itself.Itisclear therefore thatwe ha ι compositeadministrative actwhichresulted inthetransfer of. applicant,which is notchallenged by meansof thepresent reci se. T'l.s gistof thepresentrecourse,thefirst leg of thecomposite admin itartive act,being inotherwords apreparatory act, could beimp gned separately provided that"thepreparatory actwould itselfprejudge theresult of thefinal administrativeactasitwould n thencreatelegalresults by itself. (VidePapadopoulosv.Repub lic
(1983)3C.L.R. 1423 atp. 1426 andCaramondaniBrosLtd. v. The Republic
(1987)3C.L.R. 156 atp. 159. Fromthemomenthowever,thatthecompositeadministrative actiscompleted,which is thepresentcase accordingtothestate- *c mentof theapplicantthatshewas transferred, thechallengeofthe original orintermediate preparatory actloosesitsindividual exe cutorycharacterand itcannotbethereafter challenged separately. And whenthefinal actonlyisbeingchallengedthenofcoursethe wholecompositeactisconsideredaschallenged atthesame time. (vide Mitidou v. CYTA
(1982)3 C.L.R. 555 atpp.577 et seq. - 20 videalsoloannou v. EAC
(1981)3C.L.R.280 atp.299; Prezas andanotherv.TheRepublic
(1986)3C.L.R.
- Applying the law as above stated to thefacts of thepresent case I holdtheview thatthedecisionregarding theunitswhich is being impugned by thepresentrecourse,was merged inthesub sequentdecision regarding thetransfer of theapplicantwhich is not being impugned by thepresent recourse. Itis clear thatthe sub-judice decisioninconnectionwith theunitslostitsexecutory characteranditisnotanymorejusticiable separately underArticle
- 25 In the result present recourse fails and is accordingly dis missed. Lettherebeno orderas tocosts. Recourse dismissed. Noorderastocosts. 580 3 0