3 C.L.R. 19SSNovember5 IPAPADOPOL'LOS J I RENOS KYRIAKIDES AND OTHERS, Applicants \ THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICECOMMISSION AND ANOTHER Respondents (Cases\os 3V/S4 349/S4409/S4 4S5/S4) Misconception of Law andfact — Promotion of 12persons snthe Public Educational Service, whereas the vacantposts were onlv eleven — Annulled Thereasonwhv theCourt annulledthesub-judicepromotions uhich had been in anv event revoked, appears in the hereinabovenote The Court hadearlierdecidedthat theRecoursewas notabatedby reasonof the revocation Sub Judice promotions annulled Λο order asto costs Cases referredto Piendes ν Republic
(1969)tCLR 241 Andreou\ Republic
(1978)3 CLR 85 Constantmou \ Republic
(1969)3 CLR 90. Poyadjis\ Republic
(1975)3 CLR 378 loannous Republic
(1985)3 CLR 31, Kynacou ν Republic
(1985)3 CLR 2414, 17 Kyriakides &Olh. v.Educ S e n . Com.&An. (19S9) Tryfonos v.Republic(19S5)3CLR.
- Recourses. Recourses against the decision of the respondents No.l to 5 promote the interested parties to the post of Headmaster Secondary Education in preference and instead of the applicants. F. ValianTis, for the Applicants in cases 331/
- 349/
- 10 4S5/S
- A. S.Angelides. for the Applicant in case409/
- R. Petridou. for the Respondents. 15 Cur. adv. vult. PAPADOPOULOS, J. read the following judgment. The applicants in the present applications are challenging the ?0 decision of the Educational Service Commission, respondents No. 1 intheseproceedings,whichtheyreachedonthe6thJune;
- By this decision the Educational Service Commission promoted to the post of Headmaster Secondary Education twelveoftheircolleagues andnotthem. 25 Amongotherreasons,theapplicantschallengethevalidityof the above decision on the ground that it was based on a misconception of Law and facts. More concretely, when the respondents promoted the interested parties to the post of 30 HeadmasterthereexistedonlyelevenpostsbuttheEducational Committee acting under an erroneous misconception of facts andLaw.increasedthenumberofthevacantpoststotwelveand proceededtothepromotion oftwelvepersonstothepostofthe Headmaster. There isnodisputeasto theabovefacts.Infact,thelawyer acting for the respondents, when she realized this fact. submitted asuggestion to the respondents for thecancellation of their decision ofthe6/6/
- As a matter of fact, on the 9/2/85the Educational Service 18 40 35 3 C.L.R. Kyriakides &Oth.v. Educ.Serv. Com. &An. Papadopoulos,J. Commission was convenedtoexaminethematterandhadthis to say with regard to the sub judice decision, which they eventually revoked: 5 "Ενόψειτη;διαπίστωσηςότιημιαθέσηΔιευθυντήπουεί χεκενωθείύστερααπότηνενλόγωακυρωτική απόφαση του ΑνωτάτουΔικαστηρίουέπρεπε κανονικάναπληρωθείανα δρομικά από1.9.80(που ίσχυε ηακυρωθείσα προαγωγή)με βάση το νομικό και πραγματικό καθεστώς που ίσχυε στις 10 30.S.S0 ηΕπιτροπήαποφασίζει ναανακαλέσειτηναπόφαση τη; μεημερ.6.6.84γιατηνπροαγωγή12ΒοηθώνΔιευθυντών στη θέση Διευθυντή και να επανεξετάσει το όλο θέμα εξ υπαρχής." 15 it must be notedthatthe respondents had submitted tothe Court at an earlier stage that after the revocation of the sub judice decision by the Educational Service Commission, the right oftheapplicantstopursuetheirrecourses hadbeen abated as they had been deprived of their subject matter and in 20 consequence, had no legitimate interest entitling them to pursue theirrecourses any further. The applicants opposed the submission of the respondents and insisted that they were entitled to have the recourses 25 determined in accordance with Anicle 146
(4)of the Constitutioninordertobecomeentitled,if successful, toclaim damages underArticle 146
(6)of the Constitution. It was decided by theCourtthattherecourses hadnotbeen 30 abatedby therevocation of thesubjudice decision. Theonlyissuebefore theCourtiswhethertheapplicantsare entitled to the remedy prayed for in their application against the sub judice decision onthe facts as above stated andwhich 35 were admittedby both sides. Thereis nodoubt thattheEducationalService Commission when examining the case and deciding on the 6/6/84, were acting under amisconception of law andfact. There is agreat 40 numberof authoritiessupporting thatthedecision takenunder a misconception of law andfact cannotstand andit has to be annulled. (See Pierides r. Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 247. 19 Papadopoulos.J. Kyriakides&Oth.v.Educ.Serv.Com.&An. (1989J Andreou v. Republic
(1978)3 C.L.R. 85. Constantinou Y. Republic
(1969)3C.L.R. 190.Poyiadjis v.Republic
(1975)3 C.L.R. 378. loannou v. Republic
(1985)3 C.L.R. 31. Kyriacou v. Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.2414 and Tryfonosv. Republic
(1985)3C.L.R.2555). In the light of the above,the subjudice decision ishereby declarednullandvoidandofnoeffect andinthecircumstances Imake noorder astocosts. Sub judice promotions annulled. Noorderasto costs. 20