|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1987) 3 CLR 229
[A. LOIZOU. J.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION
CEORGHIOS S. SARRIS.
Applicant.
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS AND/OR
THE EDUCATIONAL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondent.
(Case No. 424/83).
Educational Officers-The Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments. Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations. Regs. 5 and 10(2)-The list compiled under reg.5-Reg. 10(2) clearly sets out rules of priority-Respondents not entitled to disregard such rules.
Notwithstanding the fact that the name of the applicant was placed prior to the names of the interested parties on the list of candidates, which had been prepared in accordance with reg.5 of the aforesaid regulations, the respondents appointed on contract to the post of school-master of Chemistry the interested parties. As a result the applicant filed the present recourse.
Held, annulling the sub judice decision, that reg. 10(2) of the said Regulations sets out clearly the rules of priority and, as our case law shows the respondent Commission was not entitled to disregard its provisions.
Sub judice decision annulled.
No order as to costs.
Cases referred to:
Psara-Kronidou v. The Republic (1985) 3 C.L.R. 1900;
Kyriakidou v. The Educational Service Commission (1986) 3 C.L.R. 913;
Kouis and Others v. The Republic (1986) 3 C.L.R. 1874;
Sarris v. The Educational Service Commission (1987) 3 C.L.R. 186.
Recourse.
Recourse against the decision of the respondent to appoint and/or for appointment on contract to the post of School Master of Chemistry in the Secondary Education, the interested parties in preference and instead of the applicant.
A.S. Angelides with L. Sarris, for the applicant.
R. Petridou (Mrs.), for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
A. LOIZOU J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant seeks (a) Declaration of the Court that the act and/or decision of the respondent Commission by which they appointed and/or appointed on contract Athanasia Nicolaidou, Andrea Stavraki and Elisavet Temprioti, to the post of School Master of Chemistry is null and void and with no legal effect. (b) Declaration of the Court that the refusal and/or omission of the respondents to appoint the applicants to the post of School Master of Chemistry in spite of his priority on the list of candidates for appointment, is null and void and with no legal effect.
The facts of the case are briefly these. The applicant graduated in 1973 from the Metsovio Polytechnic of Athens with a degree in Chemical Engineering. His name was placed on the List of Candidates for appointment as a School-Master of Chemistry, under serial No.21. The said list of candidates was prepared by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 5 of the Educational Officers (Teaching Staff) (Appointments, Emplacements, Transfers, Promotions and Related Matters) Regulations 1972 as amended. Under the provisions of Regulation 10(2) thereof appointments on contract are made in order of priority from the relevant lists of persons to be appointed».
The three interested parties were likewise placed on the aforesaid list under serial Nos. 28. 29 and 33.
The respondent Commission by its decision of the 12th September, 1983, appointed on contract the said three interested parties for a year commencing the 1st September, 1983 to the 31st August, 1984, in preference and instead of the applicant who had obvious priority over them in accordance with the aforementioned Regulation.
In the case of Psara - Kronidou v. The Republic, (1985) 3 C.L.R. 1900 it was held that the respondent Commission could not disregard the provisions of the aforementioned Regulation 10(2), which for all intents and purposes at the time of taking the sub judice decision was in force. This principle was followed in the cases of Loukia Kyriakidou v. The Educational Service Commission, Recourse No. 785/85 judgment delivered on the 4th June, 1986; Kouis and Others v. The Republic Recourse No. 34/85, judgment delivered on the 25th September, 1986. and also in Georghios S. Sams, v. The Educational Service Commission, Recourse No. 940/85, judgment delivered on the 27th January, 1987 both judgments as yet unreported - where extensive reference is made to the relevant Case Law of this Court.
In all fairness, counsel for the respondent Commission has not advanced any argument to the contrary in view of the well settled by now, Case Law of this Court on this point above referred to.
I find no reason whatsoever to disagree with the approach of my learned Brethren in the recourses just referred to. The said Regulation sets out very clearly the rules of priority which had to be observed in appointing on contract educational officers by the respondent Commission, so long as the said Regulation was in the Statute book.
For all the above reasons this recourse succeeds and the sub judice decision is declared null and void and with no legal effect whatsoever.
In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.
Sub judice decision annulled
No order as to costs.