clr/1988/1988_3_601.pdf

(1988)3 CMJi. 593adoptedandfollowed. 5 The facts of this case sufficiently appear from thejudgment of the Court Sub judice decision annulled. No orderastocosts. Casesreferredto: 10 Savva v.TheRepublic

(1986)3C.L.R.455; Papakyriakou v. TheRepublic

(1988)3C.L.R.593. Recourse. Recourseagainstthedecisionoftherespondenttoappointon 601 Papakyriakou v. Republic

(1988)contractand/orrenewcontractual appointments ofinterested partiesasteachersof Commercial subjects in preference and instead of theapplicant. A. S.Angetides, for the applicant. P.Clerides, for therespondent. 5 Cur. adv. vult. SAVVIDES J. read the following judgment. This recourse is directed against the act or decision of the Educational Service Commission (E.S.C.) dated 12th December, 1986,to appoint on contract and/or renew thecontractual appointments of

(1)ChristosVassiliou,

(2)Constantinos Stylianou and

(3)LambrosDjordjis, asteachers of Commercial subjects, instead ofand in preferencetoher. ^ This case is similar with Case No 674/86, filed by the same applicant, thejudgment in which hasjust been delivered. Iwill, 15 therefore, relate the facts very briefly, since they appear in more detailintheabovecase. The E.S.C. offered, on the 11th October, 1986, contractual appointments for 15daystoanumberof Educationalists amongst" whominterested party No.2.Asaresult of thenonacceptance of 20 such appointments bycertaincandidates,therespondent appointed theapplicant intheplaceofoneof them,until further contacts were madewith thoseof thecandidates interestedand havingpriority for appointment over her (see minutes of 13th October, 1986). Interested party No. 3 was also appointed on the same 25 date. Upon the expiration of the aforesaid contractual appointments,therespondent meton the31st Octoberandrenewed them for afurther period of 15days,except thatof theapplicant. Inher place,interested party No. 1was appointed, on the basis of the criteria set down by the E.S.C. on the 11th October,

1. Re- 30 courseNo.674/86, wasfiled against theabove decision. 602 3 C.L.R. 5 10 Papakyriakou v. Republic Savvides J. Before theexpiration of theaforesaid contractual appointments a letter was sent on the6th December, tothe Ministry of Education by the Ministry of Finance, granting approval for the employment of teachers on contract during the school year 1986/ 1987 (30renewalsand 17new appointments,asstated inthesaid letter).This letter wascommunicated totheE.S.C.byletterdated the 10th December, 1986, towhich lists were also attached containingthenamesof theeducationalists concerned. The E.S.C. met on the 12th December, 1986 and therelevant partofitsminutesreads asfolows:"TheCommission havinginmind (a)theletterof theMinistry ofEducation No. 115/85/2dated 10.12.1986 by which the approval for the contractual appointment of 47teachersand 11instructorsiscommunicated, 15 20 (b) its decisions dated 9.
2. , 10.9, 4.10, 11.10, 13.10 and 31.10.86on thebasis of which the following teachers and instructors were selected and appointed by the Commission on contract for aperiod of 15working days,decides thatthe last fortnightly contracts beextended until the 31.7.87 or 31.8.87 asstated below: Teachers Stylianou Constantia Commercial Subjectstill31.7.87 Djordjis Lambros Commercial Subjects till 31.7.87 Vassiliou Christos Commercial Subjects till31.7.87." 25 The applicant filed thepresent recourse challenging the above decision. The groundsof lawraised in thisrecourse areexactly thesame with those raised in Recourse No. 674/86 and I will not repeat 603 Savvides J. Papakyriakou v. Republic

(1988)them. Counsel for the applicant argued,in addition, that therespondentdid notconsider thematterafresh, but simplydecided toextend theduration ofthecontractualappointmentsoftheinterested parties.Inviewof this,counsel argued, if theoriginalcontractual 5 appointments challenged by recourse No. 674/86 are annulled, the extension of the duration of those appointments, challenged by the present recourse, must also be annulled. Counsel further contended that therespondent did notexercise itsown discretion in the matter but simply adopted the suggestion of the Ministry JQ for theextension of thecontractsofthoseeducationalists listed by theMinistryof Finance. It isclear from the wordingof the subjudice decision that the E.S.C.did not consider the subjudice appointments de novo but itrelied instead on itspreviousdecisions which werebasedon the 15 criteria laid down by iton the 11th October, 1986,in ordertoextend theduration of the same contractual appointments including those of the interested parties. I adopt what I have said in my judgment in Efterpi Papakyriakou v.Republic

(1988)3 C.L.R. 593 in which I annulled the decision challenged on the ground ~o that thecriteria laid down bytheE.S.C.onthe 11thOctober,beingthe sameas those contained inregulation 5

(2)andtheSchedule tothe 1972Regulations which had been declared in the case of Sawa v. The Republic

(1986)3 C.L.R. 455 as ultra vires the law and void for unreasonableness, could not have been relied upon andform thebasisof thedecision challenged. As I said earlier, in reaching the subjudice decision the respondent did not consider the casede novo but simply extended the contractual appointments of those already appointed by its previousdecisionson thecriteriaalready mentioned. Consequently,the subjudice decision which doesnotoffer anyotherreasoningisacontinuation of thepreviousoneandisbased onthe same criteria. Asaresult ithastobeannulled for thesamereasons. 604 3 C.L.R. Papakyriakou v.Republic Savvides J. In theresult thisrecourse succeeds andthesubjudicedecision ishereby annulled with noorder astocosts. Sub judice decision annulled. Noorderasto costs. 605