VORKAS AND ANOTHER ν. REPUBLIC (1982) 3 CLR 309

Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Need for due reasoning—Transfer of elementary school teachers—Reasons for the transfer in answer to applicant's objection and reasons appearing in a communique on the question of transfers generally, in direct conflict—Sub judice transfers annulled for lack of due reasoning.

Administrative Law—Administrative acts or decisions—Need to be reached after a proper inquiry—Transfer of elementary school teachers—Objection—No sufficient inquiry into the grounds of objection—Transfers annulled as being the result of insufficient inquiry.

The applicants who are husband and wife have from 1976 to 1980 been serving as elementary school teachers at the elementary school of Aglandjia. On July 24, 1981, the respondents decided to transfer them to Psevdas village. Applicants objected against the transfer by letter dated July 27, 1981 and the respondents replied to the objection by letter dated November 9, 1981 in which it was stated, inter alia, that the objection could not be entertained because of educational reasons consisting of the existence of surplus of teachers at Nicosia schools and corresponding scarcity of teachers at rural schools. In a communique issued by the respondents, apparently in answer to criticism against their decisions in connection with transfers of elementary school teachers, they spoke about surplus of teachers in the Districts of Limassol and Paphos.

Upon a recourse by the applicants against the above transfer:

Held, that the administration must give proper reasons for its decision so that the Court may be enabled to ascertain whether the decision complained of is well founded; that though the reasoning of an administrative organ may be ascertained and supplemented from the material in the files of the administration, in the present case no such reasoning can be derived from the documents and files produced in the Court; comparing the reasons that allegedly led the respondents to the transfer of school teachers, as they appear in their said communique, and the contents of their letter of the 9th November, 1981, one cannot reach the conclusion that the respondents arrived at their decision in a reasonable manner; that, further, it is a basic principle of administrative law that the administrative organ concerned in each case, in reaching its decision, must have carried out a proper inquiry; that in this case, it does not appear either from the relevant files or from their letter of the 9th November, 1981, that the respondents have gone thoroughly into the grounds put forward by the applicants in their objection against their transfer; and that, therefore, the sub judice decision has to be declared null and void for lack of due reasoning and as being the result of insufficient inquiry on the part of the respondents.

Sub judice decision annulled.

Cases referred to:

Eleftheriou and Others v.The Central Bank (1980) 3 C.L.R. 85 at p. 98;

Bagdades v.The Central Bank of Cyprus (1973) 3 C.L.R. 417 at pp. 428, 429;

Savva v.The Republic (1980) 3 C.L.R. 675 at p. 696.

Recourse.

Recourse against the decision of the respondents to transfer applicants from the Fifth Elementary School of Aglandjia to the Elementary School of Psevdas.

A. S.Angelides, for the applicants.

R.Vrahimi-Karyda (Mrs.), for the respondent.

Cur.adv. vult.

DEMETRIADES J. read the following judgment, By means of the present recourse the applicants seek the following relief:

1. A declaration and/or decision of the Court that the decision and/or act of the respondents to transfer the applicants from the Fifth Elementary School of Aglandjia to the Elementary School of Psevdas is null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

2. A declaration of the Court that the omission of the respondents to answer and/or examine the objection of the applicants as to the said transfer and/or their omission to decide or review their decision about the transfer of the applicants to Psevdas is void and everything omitted should be done.

3. A declaration of the Court that the decision and/or the persistence of the respondents to transfer the applicants to Psevdas notwithstanding their objection is void and of no legal effect.

The applicants are husband and wife and they are serving as elementary school teachers since 1960 and 1962, respectively.

From the time of their appointment, and until 1975, they had both served in rural schools. In 1975 they were transferred to Dasoupolis elementary school, which is classified as type 'A', where they served for one year and from 1976 to 1980 they were posted at the 4th and 5th elementary schools of Aglandjia, which are of type 'A' and 'B'.

The decision for the transfer of the applicants from Aglandjia to Psevdas village was reached by the respondents on the 24th July, 1981, but it was not communicated to them till the 18th August, 1981. On the 27th July, 1981, the applicants, who were informed about their transfer from the daily press, objected in writing against the said decision, setting out the reasons why it ought not to be implemented. Their objection, which is appended to this judgment and is marked as Document No. 1, was address to the "Τμηματάρχη Στοιχειώδους Εκπαιδεύσεως Υπουργείου Παιδείας" (Head of Elementary Education of the Ministry of Education), and as it appears from it, it was received by "Υπηρεσία Προσωπικού υπουργείου Παιδείας" (Personnel Service of the Ministry of Education), on the 30th July, 1981. At p. 2 of the objection, there is the following handwritten note: "E.E.Y.", which apparently means "Επιτροπή Εκπαιδευτικής Υπηρεσίας","για ενημέρωση και πιθανή ενέργεια παρ."; (Educational Service Committee, for information and possible action please). This note is initialled and bears as date the 29th July, 1981.

Though the applicants were interviewed by the respondent Educational Service Committee in connection with their said objection at about the end of August 1981, the official letter sent to them, by which they were informed that they were transferred to Psevdas, was received by them on the 12th September, 1981. The applicants did not, until the 9th November, 1981, receive any reply to their said objection, nor were they informed why their objection was rejected.

In their reply of the 9th November, 1981, the respondents set out the reasons why the objection of the applicants was rejected. The above letter reads as follows:-

"9 Νοεμβρίου 1981

Κύριο

Γεώργιο Βορκά

Δάσκαλο

Δημοτικό Σχολείο Ψευδά

(Μέσω Γενικού Διευθυντή)

Αναφέρομαι στην αίτηση/ενστασή σας σχετικά με τη μετάθεση σας και σας πληροφορώ ότι η Επιτροπή Εκπαιδευτικής Υπηρεσίας αφού εξέτασε την ένστασή σας και τις περιπτώσεις όλων των δασκάλων που υπηρετούσαν στη Λευκωσία για πέντε τουλάχιστο χρόνια, δεν μπόρεσε να ικανοποιήσει το αίτημά σας, για τους ακόλουθους λόγους:

(α) Εκπαιδευτικοί λόγοι συνιστάμενοι στην ύπαρξη πλεονασμάτων στα σχολεία Λευκωσίας και αντιστοίχων ελλειμάτων σε σχολεία υπαίθρου.

(β) Ανάγκη ικανοποιήσεως δικαιολογημένων αιτημάτων άλλων συναδέλφων σας για μετάθεση.

(γ) Οι μετατεθέντες ή υπερετούντες στη Λευκωσία δάσκαλοι είχαν ισχυρότερους λόγους για παραμονή.

(Υπ.) I. ΒΑΡΝΑΒΑΣ

Πρόεδρος."

("Mr. Georghios Vorkas Teacher

Elementary School of Psevdas (Through Director-General)

I refer to your application/objection in respect of your transfer and inform you that the Educational Service Committee after considering your objection and the cases of all the teachers serving in Nicosia for at least five years, could not satisfy your application for the following reasons:

(a) Educational reasons consisting of the existence of redundancies in the Nicosia schools and the respective shortage in rural schools.

(b) Need to satisfy justified claims of other colleagues of yours for transfer.

(Sgd) I. Varnavas

Chairman.")

It is worth to note that this letter was sent to the applicants approximately one month after they had filed the present recourse.

As it appears from the statements made by counsel during their addresses, the reasons why the applicants were transferred to Psevdas were the following: On the 26th June, 1981, two teachers, who were then posted at Psevdas elementary school, were transferred to nearby villages and a couple who was teaching in Nicosia was transferred to Psevdas village, but after an objection by the latter, the respondents decided that they had good reason not to be transferred and on the 24th July, 1981, they decided to transfer the applicants to Psevdas in the place of the other couple. No explanation has been given to the Court why the two teachers were transferred from Psevdas to nearby villages and what made necessary their said transfers.

As it appears from the documents filed, the applicants have three children. Two of them are attending the Pancyprian Gymnasium at Nicosia and the third is a five-year's old daughter. They have nobody to look after the children when they are away at Psevdas and for this reason they are forced to take the youngest child with them to Psevdas.

I have already stated the reasons given by the respondents for the transfer of the applicants to Psevdas, but none answers the grounds put forward by the applicants in their objection.

On the 12th October, 1981, however, the respondents, by a communique issued through the Public Information Office, apparently in answer to criticism made against their decision in connection with the transfer of elementary school teachers, among others, they gave the following explanation for such action:

"(γ) Η κατάσταση στην Εκπαίδευση μετά την εισβολή και τον εκτοπισμό χιλιάδων συμπατριωτών μας παρουσίασε πολλά και ιδιάζοντα προβλήματα π.χ. πλεονάσματα δασκάλων στην επαρχία Λεμεσού και Πάφου όπου εγκαταστάθηκε μεγάλος αριθμός προσφύγων δασκάλων και ελλείματα στις επαρχίες Λάρνακας και Αμμοχώστου. Η Επιτροπή είναι υποχρεωμένη να αντιμετωπίσει αυτά τα προβλήματα και είναι φυσικό να υπάρχουν διαμαρτυρίες και αντιδράσεις ".

("(c) The situation in Education after the invasion and the displacement of thousands of our compatriots presented many and particular problems i.e. redundancies of teachers in Limassol and Paphos Districts where a great number of refugee teachers have settled and shortages in the Larnaca and Famagusta Districts. The committee has to face these problems and it is natural that there should be protests and reactions").

It is obvious that the reasons given by the respondents in rejecting the objection of the applicants against their transfer to Psevdas are in direct conflict with their communique issued on the 12th October, 1981, as in that communique they speak about surplus of teachers in the districts of Limassol and Paphos, whilst in their letter explaining their refusal to acceed to the request of the applicants they speak about surplus of teachers in the Nicosia schools. They are, further, an afterthought.

It has been repeatedly stated by this Court in a number of cases that the administration must give proper reasons for its decision so that the Court may be enabled to ascertain whether the decision complained of is well founded.

In the case of Eleftheriou and Others v.The Central Bank, (1980) 3 C.L.R. 85, Hadjianastassiou J. had this to say (at p.98):

"It is said and rightly so, with respect, that it is one of the concepts of administrative law that decisions must be duly reasoned, and which in effect means, that clear and adequate reasons must be given, especially in cases of decisions taken by collective organs. Indeed, this is essential when decision is unfavourable to the subject, and because in the absence of such reasons, the Court is unable to ascertain whether the decision complained of is well-founded in fact and in accordance with the law".

(See also, inter alia, Bagdades v. The Central Bank of Cyprus, (1973) 3 C.L.R. 417, 428, 429; Savva v.The Republic, (1980) 3 C.L.R. 675, 696).

Though the reasoning of an administrative organ may be ascertained and supplemented from the material in the files of the administration, in the present case no such reasoning can be derived from the documents and files produced in the Court.

Comparing now the reasons that allegedly led the respondents to the transfer of school teachers, as they appear in their said communique, and the contents of their letter of the 9th November, 1981, one cannot reach the conclusion that the respondents arrived at their decision in a reasonable manner. Further, it is a basic principle of administrative law that the administrative organ concerned in each case, in reaching its decision, must have carried out a proper inquiry. In the present case, it does not appear either from the relevant files or from their letter of the 9th November, 1981, that the respondents have gone thoroughly into the grounds put forward by the applicants in their objection against their transfer.

Therefore, the sub judice decision has to be declared null and void for lack of due reasoning and as being the result of insufficient inquiry on the part of the respondents.

In view of my above findings, I consider it unnecessary to deal with the other issues raised in these proceedings.

For all the above reasons, the sub judice decision is declarep null and void and of no legal effect.

Costs of this application shall be against the respondents.

Sub judice decision annulled. Order

for costs as above.

" Γεώργιος Βορκάς

Δ/λος

Ομήρου 11, Τ.Τ.115

Λευκωσία.

Λευκωσία 27 Ιουλίου, 1981.

Έντιμον Κύριον

Τμηματάρχη Στοιχειώδους Εκπαιδεύσεως

Υπουργείον Παιδείας

Λευκωσία.

Εντιμε Κύριε,

Με την επιστολή μου αυτή, θέλω να διαμαρτυρηθώ για την τελευταία μετάθεση μου από το Ε' Δημοτικό Σχολείο Αγλαντζιάς στο Δημοτικό Σχολείο Ψευδά της επαρχίας Λάρνακας.

Είμαι δάσκαλος με 22 χρόνια υπηρεσίας και λόγω αρχαιότητας, σύμφωνα με τους κανονισμούς μεταθέσεων, πρέπει να τυγχάνω καλύτερης μετάθεσης.

Έχω υπηρετήσει για 15 συνεχή χρόνια στην ύπαιθρον και μάλιστα σε σχολεία διδιδάσκαλα και τριδιδάσκαλα που βρίσκοντο σε μακρινές αποστάσεις.

Η απόσταση μεταξύ της μόνιμης διαμονής μου και της νέας μετάθεσης μου είναι αρκετά μεγάλη, περίπου 22 μίλια, και λόγω του ότι δεν δικαιούμαστε οδοιπορικά αλλά μόνο κάποιο επίδομα ενοικίου, τα έξοδα μεταβάσεως μου στο Ψευδά είναι δυσανάλογα με το επίδομα που δικαιούμαι.

Επίσης η μεγάλη απόσταση δυνατόν να επηρεάζει και την έγκαιρη προσέλευση μου στο σχολείο λόγω απροβλέπτων δυσκολιών.

Έχω δυο παιδιά που φοιτούν σε Γυμνάσιο και ένα που είναι προσχολικής ηλικίας και πηγαίνει σε νηπιαγωγείο και δεν μπορώ να μετοικήσω στο Ψευδά και ν' αφήσω το σπίτι μου. Πολλές δε φορές συμβαίνει να μεταφέρω ο ίδιος τα παιδιά μου στο σχολείο, είτε γιατί ο καιρός είναι βροχερός είτε για άλλους λόγους.

Μ' όλο το σεβασμό που τρέφω προς το πρόσωπο σας κύριε τμηματάρχη, με τη νέα μετάθεση μου σχημάτισα την εντύπωση ότι βρίσκομαι σε διωγμό ή ότι τιμωρούμαι από την υπηρεσία. Χωρίς να το θέλουμε σαν άνθρωποι, συγκρίνουμε ποια μεταχείριση έχουν άλλοι συνάδελφοι, που όχι μόνο δεν υπηρέτησαν στην ύπαιθρο ή υπηρέτησαν πολύ μικρό χρονικό διάστημα σε μεγάλα σχολεία της υπαίθρου και για συνεχή ολόκληρα χρόνια, υπηρετούν πάντα σε θέσεις πολύ βολικές μέσα στη πόλη που κατοικούν.

Χωρίς να νομισθεί, ότι ζηλεύω συναδέλφους που τυγχάνουν πάντα προνομιακής μεταχείρισης θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ στα τελευταία χρόνια της υπηρεσίας μου στη Λευκωσία. Μετακινήθηκα σε τρία σχολεία, από τα οποία τα δύο ήταν νεοΐδρυτα. Αναφέρομαι στο Δ' Δημοτικό Σχολείο Αγλαντζιάς και το Ε' Δημοτικό Σχολείο Αγλαντζιάς.

Τον πρώτο χρόνο εργάστηκα στα σχολεία αυτά κάτω από πολύ αντίξοες συνθήκες διότι συνεχίζετο η ανέγερση τους και το δεύτερο χρόνο σε συνθήκες σκληρής δουλειάς για οργάνωση σχολείου και διαμόρφωση εξωτερικών χώρων.

Αυτά τα αναφέρω, όχι γιατί θέλω προνομιακή μεταχείριση όπως άλλους συναδέλφους, αλλά γιατί δεν ανέχομαι ούτε και να αδικούμαι.

Αν πραγματικά υπάρχουν λόγοι για τους οποίους τυγχάνω αυτής της μεταχείρισης σας παρακαλώ πολύ να μου τους γνωστοποιήσετε.

Με εκτίμηση,

Γ. Βορκάς

Ε.Ε.Υ.

Για ενημέρωση και πιθανή ενέργεια, παρ. 29.7.81

Υ. Γ. Οι ίδιοι λόγοι που αναφέρονται στην επιστολή του συζύγου μου, ισχύουν και για το άτομο μου.

Με εκτίμηση,

Χρ. Βορκά".

("Georghios Vorkas Teacher

Omerou Str. 11, T.T. 115 Nicosia

Nicosia 27 July, 1981

Hon. Head of Elementary Education

Ministry of Education

Nicosia.

Hon Sir,

With this letter of mine, I wish to protest against my last transfer from the 5th Elementary School of Aglandjia to the Elementary School of Psevdas of Larnaca District.

I am a teacher with 22 years service and due to seniority, according to the Regulation regarding transfers, I must have a better transfer.

I have served for 15 years in rural posts, in schools with two or three teachers which were located in long distances.

The distance between my permanent residence and my new transfer is quite long, about 22 miles, and due to the fact that we are not entitled to any travelling allowance but only to some rent allowance, the costs of my proceeding to Psevdas are disproportionate to the allowance I am entitled to.

The great distance may also affect my punctual attendance to the school due to unforeseen difficulties.

I have two children attending the Gymnasium and one of pre-school age who is attending a kindergarten and I cannot change residence and move to Psevdas and leave my house. Many times it happens that I take my children to school, either because the weather is rainy or for other reasons.

With all the respect I have for your person Mr. Director, with my new transfer I formed the opinion that I am under persecution or that I am being punished by the service. Without intending it, as men, we compare the treatment which other colleagues receive, who not only have not served in rural posts or have served for a very short period in big rural schools and for many continuous years, are serving always in posts very convenient in the town where they live.

Without being considered that I am jealous of colleagues who have always received privileged treatment I would like to refer to the last years of my service in Nicosia. I have been moved to three schools, two of which were newly established. I refer to the 4th Elementary School of Aglandjia and the 5th Elementary School of Aglandjia. The first year I served in these schools under very difficult conditions because their erection continued and the second year under conditions of hard work for organizing the school and the formation of the outside space.

I state these, not because I want privileged treatment as other colleagues, but because I cannot tolerate being treated unjustly.

If there really exist reasons for which I receive this treatment, I request you to notify them to me.

With respect

(Sgd) G. Vorkas

E.S.C.

For information and possible action please.

(Sgd)

29.7.81

P.S. The same reasons referred in my husband's letter refer to my person also.

With respect

(Sgd) Chryso Vorka")

cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο

	CyLaw \| Αναφορικά μ'εμάς \| Επικοινωνία