← Κύπρος

clr/1989/1989_3A_38.pdf

(1989)19S9January 13 [STYL1ANIDES.J.] INTHE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OFTHE CONSTITUTION NIOVI PAPAIOANNOU .ANDOTHERS. Applicants, v. THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION ANDOTHERS. Respondents, (CasesNos. 67S/S4. 6S8/S4,19/85,2S/S5) Recourse for annulment — Abatement —Annulment of subjudice actin anotherrecourse by afirstinstancejudgment —Appeal not filed— In the circumstancespresent recourseabated. Annulment ofadministrativeactby theSupreme Court—Effect—Analysis of relevantprinciples. 5 Annulment ofpromotions—Re-consideration —Retrospective promotion of successful applicant— "Sen'ice" of threeyears to thatpost required asaqualification for furtherpromotion inahigherpost — Periodto be 10 computed asfrom date,whenthepromotion took effect,not asfromdate of beginningofactualservice. Educational officers— Promotions — Sen'ice reports — Whole career of candidatesshouldbe taken into account,thoughrecent reports may be 15 reliedupon more thanolderones. Educational officers—Promotions —ThePublicEducationalService Law, 1969(Law 10/69), section 35
(2)—Identicaltosection44
(2)ofthePublic ServiceLaw—Therefore, theprincipleinZachariades v.TheRepublic 2 0
(1986)3 C.L.R.852isequallyapplicable. 38 3 C.L.R. Papaioannou &. Others Λ. Republic & Others By meansof theabove recourses applicants challenged the\alidity of the promotions to the post of Headmaster A by a decision dated3/1/S5 and by adecision dated 30/11/S4 5 The promotions of the interested parties effected under the decision of 3/1/S5 were annulled by a first instance judgment of a Judge of this Court This development raised theissuewhether therecourses, as far as the decision of 3/1/S5was concerned,were abated 10 Inthelight of thefollowing principles,namely (a) that an annulling deasion of the Court annuls the sub judice act ex tunc and erga omnes 15 20 25 30 (b) a Judge e>erasing junsdiction under section 11
(2)of the Administration of Justice Act. 1964 (.Law 33/64) is the Court, unless appeal is taken against his decision the recourse is deprived of its subject matter, unless adverse consequences detrimentally affected the applicant have not been obliterated In this case no such adverse consequences remained Therefore, therecourses are abated Various otherissueswere raised as far as thedecision of the 30/11/S4 a s concerned The more important of them appear in Headnotes 2-4 hereinabove, wherefrom one can also deduct the principles expounded by theCourtindeterminingthem Finally,having reachedthe conclusion that the promotions under the deasion of the 30/4/84 were reasonably open to the Public Service Commission, the Coun dismissed the Recourses w Recourses dismissed No order as to costs 35 Casesreferredto Yioutamsv Republic
(1987)3 C LR 490, Papaleontiouν Educational ServiceCommission
(1987)3 CLR 1341, 40 Michaeloudes andAnother ν Republic
(1979)3 CLR 56, 39 Papaioannou & Others v. Republic & Others
(1989)Loizidou -Papaphoti v. EducationalSen'ice Commission
(1984)3 C.L.R. 933. Republic v.Roussos
(1987)3 C.L.R. 1217. 5 Republic ι. Zachariades (19S6)3C.L.R. S52, Georghiouv.Republic (PublicSen'ice Commission)
(1976)3 C.L.R.
  1. Recourses. 10 Recourses against the decision of the respondents to promotetheinterested partiestothepost of HeadmasterA' in the ElementaryEducation. A. S. Angelides, for Applicants inCasesNos.678/
  2. 6S8/S4 and 19/
  3. 15 Y.Erotocritou, for Applicant inCaseNo. 128/
  4. M. Florentzos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for Respondents. 20 G. Triantafyllides. for Interested Parties A. Petridou, A. Protopapa,I.Hadjiantoni,S.Theodotou,Fr. Charalambous 25 andC. Economides. Cur. adv. vult. STYLIANIDES,J.readthefollowingjudgment.Bymeansof 30 these recourses theapplicants inCases Nos.678/84, 688/84 and 128/85challenge thelegality ofthedecision of theRespondents taken on 30thNovember, 1984,whereby 13Headmasters were promoted to the post of Headmaster A' in the Elementary Education with effect from 1st December,
  5. Recourse No. 35 19/85 is directed both against the above decision as well as against a decision taken by the Respondents on 3rd January, 1985,for thepromotionofthesix interestedpartiestothesame post with effect from 1stJanuary,
  6. TheDirectorGeneralof theMinistry of Educationby letters ending on 23rd October, 1984,requested theRespondents, the 40 40 3C.L.R. Papaioannou &Othersv.Republic&Others Stylianides, J. Educational ServiceCommission,tofill 13postsof Headmaster A ' . The Commission considered the matter at its meetings of 24thOctober. 1984.30th October, 1984.31st October, 1984,1st November,
  7. 5th November,
  8. 6th November, 1984, 5 7th November. 19S4, 14th November. 1984, 22nd November, 1984 and 26th November, 1984, when the Director of Elementary Education producedtothem the recommendations ofthe appropriate Department. 10 On 30th November. 1984,the Respondents reached the sub judice decision, whereby 13 Headmasters were promoted to Headmasters A'. The Respondents hadbefore them the files of the service reports and the personal files of all the candidates besidesthe recommendations of the Department. 15 Recourses Nos. 678/
  9. 688/84 and 19/85 challenge the promotion of all the promotees except that of Hasapis. In the course of the hearing counsel for the applicants in these recourseswithdrew thecaseagainst thepromotion of interested 20 panv Theofilides. Recourse No. 128/85 is directed against the promotion of all 13Headmasters. PROMOTIONS BY THE DECISION OF RESPONDENTS DATED 3RDJANUARY.1985: THE 25 TheapplicantinCaseNo. 19/85seeks,also,theannulmentof the decision of the Respondents taken on 3rd January, 1985, • which was published in the Official Gazette on 22nd February, 1985.whereby the six interested parties in this Recourse (Nos. 30 13-18both inclusive)werepromoted asfrom 1stJanuary.
  10. to the post of Headmaster A' in Elementary Education. 35 40 I consider it pertinent to deal first with this sub judice decision. The Minister of Education informed in writing on 17th December, 1984.theRespondents that on 31st December, 1984, seven Headmasters A' would have retired and requested the filling of the seven consequential vacancies as from 1st January. 1985,to avoidanomalyintheheadshipofthe schools. The respondent Commission at its meeting of 2nd January, 1985,dealt with the filling ofthese promotion posts and on 3rd January.
  11. decided to promote seven Headmasters, interested parties andAndreas Hadjipieris. 41 Stylianides,J. Papaioannou&Others v.Republic & Others
(1989)Thevalidity of thepromotionof these six interestedparties was challenged by another recourse filed by Eftychios Yioutanis, a Headmaster, by Recourse No. 58/85. Another Judge of this Coun annulled the sub judice decision, on the groundof lack of dueinquiry'-Yioutanis v. Republic
(1987)3 5 C.L.R.490). There\'isional jurisdiction inthiscountrywas introducedby Article 146of the Constitution. Paragraph4reads:10 "4.upon sucharecoursethe Court may,by its decision(a)confirm, either in whole or in pan,such decision or act or omission;or 15 (b)declare, eitherinwholeorinpart, suchdecisionoract tobenull andvoidand of noeffect whatsoever; or (
  1. c)declarethatsuchomission,eitherinwhole orinpart. ought not to have been made andthatwhatever has 20 beenomittedshouldhavebeen performed." Thisjurisdiction was byparagraph 1 conferredexclusivelyon the Supreme Constitutional Court. When that Coun became defunct, by section 9(
  2. a)of the Administration of Justice 25 (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law, 1964, (Law No. 33/64), the competenceof theSupremeConstitutionalCoun,including the jurisdiction underAnicle 146oftheConstitution,was vestedin the Supreme Coun andby vinue of section 11
(1)of thesame Law thejurisdiction underArticle 146of theConstitutionisto 30 be exercised by the Full Bench of the Coun, subject to the provisions of sub-sections 2 and3of section 11andanyRules of Counto be madeby the SupremeCoun. Sub-section 2of section 11 provides ineffect thatthefirstinstancejurisdictionof theSupremeCouninarecoursemaybeexercised (δύναταινα 35 ασκηθή) by a Judge or Judges of the Coun as the Counmay decide(ωςήθελετοΔικαστήριοαποφασίσει)andthatthefirst instancejudgment is subject toappeal. An annulling decision of the challenged administrative act 40 annulsex tuncandereaomnes against all, includingthosewho did not participate in the recourse. All legal results are 42 3 C.L.R. Papaioannou &Others v. Republic & Others Stylianides, J. obliterated andtheactisconsidered as if it hadnever existed. In Dendia"Administrative Law*', VolumeΓ'. p.352 weread:5 10 15 20 "'
  1. Αποτελέσματα της ακυρωτικής αποφάσεως. - Η ακυρωτική απόφασις επάγεται την ακύρωσιν της προ­ σβληθείσης πράξεως, ήτοι τηννόμιμον αυτής καταργησιν ένα\τ;ιπάντων (ergaomnes),δηλ. καιτωνμη μετασχόντων της ακυρωτικής δίκης,διότιδενείναινοητόνπράξις,ήτις ηκυρώθη,ήτοιεξέλιπενωςπαράνομος, ναδιατηρή τοανύπαρκτον κύροςτηςωςπροςδεδομένονπρόσωπον. Επέρ­ χεταιδεη κατάργησιςαυτήςκαιεξυπαρχής(extunc), εξαφανιζομένων καιτων εκτης εκτελέσεως τηςπράξεως παραχθέντων αποτελεσμάτων, αφ* ης παρήχθησαν,και επαναφερομένωντων πραγμάτων εις οχρονικόν σημείονευρίσκοντοπρινήηδιοίκησιςεπιληφθή τουθέματοςκαιυπό το τότευφιστάμενοννομικόνκαιπραγματικόν καθεστώς. Ούτωηακύρωσιςανατρέχει ειςτονχρόνον εκδόσεωςτης πράξεως, αποβαίνειδηλ. αύτηανύπαρκτος νομικώς,της διοικήσεως αδυνατούσηςνα θεωρή ταύτην ου μόνον ως υπάρ/ουσαν,αλλάκαιωςυπάρξασάν ποτέ." See, also,ConclusionsoftheJurisprudenceoftheGreekCouncil of State 1929-59, p.
  2. 25 30 Thisprinciplewas incorporatedinparagraph5ofAnicle 146 whichprovides thatanydecisiongivenunderparagraph4ofthis Anicleshallbebindingonallcounsandallorgans orauthorities of theRepublic andshall be given effect to andactedupon by theorgan or authority orpersonconcerned. The subject matter of a recourse is the legality of the challenged act. Iftheadministrative actis declarednullandvoid inanotherrecoursebytheCoun- aJudgeexercisingjurisdiction 35 undersection 11
(2)is theCoun,unless appeal is taken against his such decision - this results in the abatement of another pending recourse against it in as much as the recourse is deprived of its subject matter,unless adverse consequences of such actor decision detrimentally affecting alegitimate interest 40 of theapplicanthave notbeenobliterated. Itistobenotedthat in this country damages for material detriment suffered as a result of anadministrative actordecision canberecovered only 43 Stylianides, J. Papaioannou &Others v.Republic &Others
(1989)under paragraph 6 of Article 146 after obtaining ajudgment of this Coun underparagraph 4 ofthesame Anicle. otherwise noone is entitled to aclaim for relief under paragraph
  1. In Dendia(supra) at p.309 we read:- 5 "
  2. Έλλειψις ουσιαστικού αντικειμένου εν ακυρωτική δίκη. Ηενώπιον τουΣΕακυρωτική δίκηκαθίσταται άνευ ουσιαστικού αντικειμένου, της συνεχίσεως αυτής μηεξυ­ πηρετούσης σκοπόν τίνακαιούσης ούτωπεριττής,εις πε- 10 ριπτώσεις,ως αιεξής: (α) (β)Οσάκις ηαίτησις ακυρώσεως στρέφεταικατάπράξεως. 15 ήτιςέχειήδη ακυρωθήυπότουΣΕ3...ότεωςεκτουλό­ γουτούτουη αίτησιςακυρώσεως ενώπιοντουΣΕκαθί­ σταται απαράδεκτοςλόγω τουδεδικασμένου.... 20
  3. ΣΕ492, 781/1938, 369/1940.'* In Tsatsos "Application for Annulment", 3rd Edition, at p. 374 it is stated:25 "
  4. - Εάνηπροσβαλλομένηπράξις ή παράλειψις ακυ­ ρωθήεξ' ολοκλήρου δι*ετέραςαποφάσεωςτουΣυμβουλί­ ου της Επικρατείας,η περί ακυρώσεως αυτής αίτησις, η τυχόν εισέτι εκκρεμούσα, αποβαίνει άνευ αντικειμένου. τηςακυρωτικήςαποφάσεωςεξαφανιζούσηςτηνπράξινεξ' 30 υπαρχής,έστωκαιανηδιοίκησιςμέχριτηςεκδικάσεωςτης εκκρεμούσης αιτήσεωςδενσυνεμορφώθηπροςτηνακυρωτικήναπόφασιντουΣυμβουλίουτηςΕπικρατείας.Ειςτοιαύτηνπερίπτωσιν έδειναπροσβληθήη ενέργεια ή η παράλειψις η συνιστώσα την μησυμμόρφωσιν." 35 Having regardto the object of the administrative justice and the principles governing the review of the legality of administrative acts v,. ''visions,it is notpermissiblefor the same administrative aa °f decision to be declared null and 40 void in one recourse and to he confirmed in another recourse Themechanism of administration of justice should 44 3C.L.R. Papaioannou &Others v.Republic &Others Stylianides, J. beco-ordinated insuchaway.soasto avoidundesirable and impermissible separate judicial pronouncements, regarding the legality of the same administrative act or decision challengedbymorethan oneapplicant indifferent recourses. 5 In view of the above, as the sub judice decision of the Respondents of 3rdJanuary. 1985.relatingto the promotion of the six interested panies to the post of Headmaster A', was declared null and void in another recourse, ex tunc and erga 10 omnes.this recourse had been deprived ofits subject matter so far asitrelates tothisact.ithasbeen abatedanditwillbestruck out. DECISION OF 30TH NOVEMBER. 19S4: 15 As it has been said earlier on. the recourse against the promotion of Theofilides was withdrawn except in Recourse No. 128/
  5. ItwassubmittedthatTheofilides lackedtherequired qualification ofthree yearsserviceinthepost of Headmaster. It 20 was argued that the promotion of this interested panv (Theofilides) was not valid in that he lacked the prescribed qualification of three years service in the lower post of Headmaster. He was not promoted in 1980 as others were prefened. After asuccessful recourse to this Coun that actwas 25 annulled and in 1984 theRespondents, having reconsidered the filling ofthepost underthelegal andfactual situation existingin 1980, as their duty was. promoted him retrospectively as from
  6. It was submitted that "service" in the contents of the scheme of service means actual sen'ice which Theofilides 30 lacked. As it was said earlier, the effect of an annulling decision is to obliterate the act challenged ex tunc. The promotions after an annullingdecisionbythisCounaremaderetrospectively,i.e.,with 35 effect from the date of the annulled decision, an exception to the ruleagainst retrospectivity. Thefruit ofthesuccess in arecourse of this nature is this: The reconsideration of the matter by the appointing authority and the probable selection of the applicant retrospectively. Theofilides was promoted retrospectively from 40 1980,more than three years before therequest for the filling for thepostofthesubjudicedecision. 45 Stylianides, J. Papaioannou &Others v. Republic &Others
(1989)In GeorghiosPapaleontiouv. The Educational Service Commission(19S7) 3C.L.R. 1341.it was heldthat,thoughthe appellant was promotedtothesame post after thefiling ofthe recourse,hehadalegitimate interesttopursuetherecourse,as. if the sub judice decision were annulled, he had a prospect of 5 retrospective promotion,which would affect his seniority, one of thethreefactors onwhich theclaim of persons in thePublic Service for promotion orappointmentis based. If the submission of counsel were accepted, the 10 administration of justice andthe judicial control of promotions would be derogated andtheannulling decisions of theSupreme Coun would be deprived of theirforce and effect. Inviewof theforegoing, '"service" meansholdingthepost in 15 question: Theperiodtobecomputedfrom theeffective date of the promotion to theprevious post andnot only theperiodof actual performance of duties. It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that 20 the Respondents acted contrary to the provisions of sections 26
(3)and35
(2)of theEducational Service Law, 1969 (Law No. 10/69). as amended by Law No. 53/79. in that no lists of educationalists - headmasters eligible for promotion were prepared orpublished. 25 Itmustbebom inmindthatRegulations 26.28and29ofthe 1972 Regulations (No. 105/72)were declaredultravirestheLaw inMichaeloudesandAnother v.Republic
(1979)3C.L.R.56. Soon aftenvards theamendingLaw53/79 was enacted. Section 30 26
(1)as amendedreads:"26.-
(1)Επιφυλασσομένωντωνδιατάξεωντου νόμου αυτού,κενήθέσιςΠρώτουΔιορισμούήκενήθέσιςΠρώτου ΔιορισμούκαιΠροαγωγήςδημοσιεύεταιεις τηνεπισημον 35 εφημερίδα της Δημοκρατίας. Η δημοσίευσις παρέχειτα αφορώνταειςτηνθέσινστοιχείακαικαθορίζειτοντρόπον καιτηνπροθεσμίανυποβολής αιτήσεων.
(2)Κενήθέσις Προαγωγής πληρούται,άνευδημοσιεύ- 40 σεως, διά προαγωγής εκπαιδευτικούλειτουργούυπηρε­ τούντοςειςτηναμέσωςκατωτέραντάξιν,θέσινήβαθμόν." 46 3 C.L.R. Papaioannou &Others v. Republic &Others Stylianides. J. A new sub-section was addedby Law 53/79which reads:- 5 '•
(3)Η διαδικασίαπρος πλήρωσινκενήςθέσεωςδυνάμει του παρόντοςάρθρου, περιλαμβάνουσα καιπρόνοιαν περί καταρτισμού, περιεχομένουκαιδημοσιεύσεως πινάκων διοριστέων ήπροαζίμων, ως θαήτοηπερίπτωσις, οίτινες έχουσι ταπρος τούτο καθωρισμέναπροαπαιτούμενα,κα­ θορίζεται." 10 As Regulations 26, 28 and 29 of the Educational Officer (TeachingStaff), (Appointments.Postings.Transfers,Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations of 1972 were declared ultra virestheenabling Law,they ceased to be inforce and applicable. The addition of sub-section 3afterwards didnot revive them. In 15 1985 Regulations 26.2Sand29werereintroducedbyamendment of theexisting Regulations. This subsidiary legislation cameinto force after the sub judice decision and therefore it was not applicable atthematerial time.Regulation 27readalone provides only for the evaluation of the Educational Officers as to their 20 fitness for promotion at least once a year and nothing more. Having regard to the Law, including the Statute and the " Regulations,inforce on 30th November, 1984,thecontentionof the applicants inuntenable. 25 Section 35
(2)of Law 10/69 as amendedby Law 53/79reads:- 30 "Κατά την εζέτασιντων διεκδικήσεωντων εκπαιδευτι­ κών λειτουργών προς προαγωγήν λαμβάνονταιδεόντως υπ' όψιν ηαξία,ταπροσόντακαιηαρχαιότης συμφώνως 1 προςδιαδικασίαν ήτις καθορίζεται. ' 35 ("In considering claims of educational officers for promotion,merit,qualifications andseniority are duly taken into consideration in accordance with the prescribed procedure.") Sub-section 3 reads:"Κατά την προαγωγήν η Επιτροπή λαμβάνει δεόντως υπ : όψιν τας περί των υποψηφίωνυπηρεσιακάς εκθέσεις και ταςσυστάσεις τουοικείουΤμήματος Εκπαιδεύσεως." 40 This provision corresponds to section 44
(2)and
(3)of the Public Service Law, 1967 (Law No. 33/67). 47 Stylianides, J. Papaioannou &Others v. Republic &Others
(1989)In EW Loizidou-Papaphoti v. The Educational Service Commission(19S4) 3C.L.R.933.at p.938 it was said:"The Head of the Department in the case of public servants and the appropriate Department in the case of 5 educationalists, has the duty to make an assessment of the suitability of a candidate on consideration of all factors relevant to his merits, qualifications andseniority and then. after comparing the candidates, arrive at a conclusion and this would be the respective recommendation. It is not 10 necessary for the recommending person or body to state reasons for such recommendations,butif reasons aregiven. they are subject tojudicial scrutiny." Inthepresent case therecommendationsrun asfollows:- 15 ".... σχετικά με το πιο πάνω θέμαπαραθέτω πιο κάτο) τις συστάσεις τουΤμήματοςΔημοτικήςΕκπαίδευσης. Οι συστάσεις υποβάλλονται αφού λήφθηκαν υπόψηοι 20 προσωπικές μουγνώσεις γιατουςυποψηφίους,οισυστά­ σεις καιαπόψειςτων οικείων επιθεωρητών,οι υπηρεσια­ κέςεκθέσειςκαι. όλαταστοιχείατωνσχετικώνφακέλων." Twenty-five nameswiththeirpersonal numberintheservice 25 areset down anditconcludes:"Especially I recommend Mr. Christos Theofilides. Mr. Theofilides possesses three M.S. and Ph.D. Degrees. He is teaching at the Pedagogical Institute very serious series of 30 lessons includingaseries on"organization andadministration" forheadmasters of Secondary andPrimaryEducation." It was contendedthatthis recommendation does notrecord the personal knowledge, theview andtherecommendations of 35 the various persons involved - the Director of Elementary Education, the Inspectors -andall otherrelevant material and no reasons are given for such recommendations. The only applicantwhoisrecommendedisNioviPapaioannou, applicant in Case No. 678/84. All promotees were amongst those 40 recommended. Thelist of thenames intherecommendationis given inalphabetical order. 48 3C.L.R, Papaioannou &Others v.Republic &Others Stylianides. J. According to the passage cited from Papaphoti case, this document satisfies the requirements of the Law. It would be. however, invalid if it were inconsistent with the material in the file. On thematerialbefore me Ifindnofault withregardto the 5 recommendations ofthe Department of Elementary Education. Applicant in Case No. 678/S4 complained that her "additional qualification" was disregarded without special reason. The Commission has wrongly taken into consideration 10 unlawful actsof herpersecution bysomepersonsin Authority. The last contention is unfounded: there is nothing, either in the sub judice decision or anywhere else in the material placed before theCourt,to substantiate this allegation. The certificate 15 of attendance of the applicant wasbefore the Commission and it can be inferred that it was treated as not amounting to an additional qualification under the schemes of sen'ice. Such interpretation wasreasonably open totheRespondents, inview oftherequirement that post-graduate training,etc..hadtobein 20 educational matters. Thisground, also,fails. Applicant in Case No. 688/84 contented in the written addressthat theexpression of opinion and observations bythis applicant, which are in his personal file, might have to an 25 uncertain degree influenced the respondent Commission in reaching its subjudice decision. This allegation isnot born out at all,either from thematerial inthefile or from theminutesof the respondent Commission. 30 Applicant in Case No. 19/85 alleges that after the subjudice decision wastaken hismarks for thelast two years were 37-38 and 37-37andthismighthave influenced theCommission. The revision ofhismarkstook placeafterthesubjudicedecisionwas reachedbut,inanyway.thisslight differentiation, having regard 35 to the material in the file, would not have influenced the Commission. It isworth noting that he was not recommended by the appropriate Department. Agroundraisedbymorethanoneoftheapplicantsisthatthe 40 Commission wrongly took into consideration the service reports of the evaluation of thecandidates for only thelast two years. 49 Stylianides. J. Papaioannou &Others v.Republic &Others
(1989)In Republic v. Roussos (19S7) 3 C.L.R. 1217, the same point wasraised and the Full Benchin a unanimousJudgment deliveredbyTriantafyllides, P..saidatp.1224:"Secondly, it is true that the whole career of an officer 5 should be taken into account, so that a complete picture about himmaybeformed,but itcannotbesaidthatthereis beingentailedawrongexerciseoftherelevant discretionary powers if the recent reports arerelied upon more than the older ones, because it cannot be denied that the recent 10 reports present apicturewhichismorerelevant onthedate on which the selection of the candidate to be promoted or appointed ismade." It wascontendedbytheapplicantsandmorestrenuouslybyapplicant in Case No. 128/85,besides the grounds mentioned above to whichreference wasmade,that theywerebetterthan the interested parties, especially in view of seniority, andthat the Commission failed in its paramount dutyto select thebest suitablecandidate. Thecriterialaiddown in section 35
(2)of Law 10/69for the claim of promotion ofeducationalists areidentical tothoseset out in section 44
(2)of thePublicService Law, 1967(LawNo. 33/67)forpublicofficers. ThefollowingpassagefromRepublic 25 v.Zachariades
(1986)3C.L.R.852,at p.856,appliesequally for educationalists:"Also,weareoftheviewthatthethreecriteriawhichare setoutinsection44
(2)ofthePublicServiceLaw, 1967(Law 30 33/67).namelymerit,qualifications andseniority,havetobe weighed together,... An appointing authority, such as the appellant Commission,whenweighingtogetherthesaidthreecriteria, 35 in order to find the most suitable candidate, may attribute such significance to them asit may deem proper, provided that it exercises correctly, in the course of doing so, its relevant discretionary powers ...: and it is not provided by section 44
(2)that any one of the three criteria has,in any 40 event,greaterimportancethantheothertwo." 50 15 20 3 C.L.R. Papaioannou &Others v.Republic &Others Stylianides. J. (See, also. Odysseas Georghiou v. Republic (Public ServiceCommission)
(1976)3C.L.R.74atp. 82). OnthebasisofthematerialbeforethisCourt,andinthelight 5 ofthearguments advanced.Ihavereachedtheconclusion that in the present cases it wasreasonably open to the respondent Commission toselecttheinterestedpartiesasthemostsuitable candidates for promotion to the post in question. The Administrative Court,cannotgosofar asineffect tosubstitute 10 its own discretion in the place of that of the respondent Commission as regards the choice of the most suitable candidate. None of the applicants has established striking superiority 15 overanyoftheinterestedparties. In view of the foregoing, all recourses fail, they arehereby dismissedandthesubjudicedecisionisconfirmed underAnicle 146
(4)(a)oftheConstitution. 20 Inallthecircumstances,lettherebenoorderastocosts. Recourses dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 51

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.