Supreme Court annuls Review Committee decision denying schoolteacher class B due to two-year study abroad instead of three.

[*848] 1966 June 22

(TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.)

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

In the matter of Article 146 of the Constitution

Antigone Georghiadou,

Applicant,

and

The Attorney-General of the Republic,

Respondent.

(Gase No.74/65).

Secondary Education - Schoolteachers - Classification of under the Schoolmasters of Communal Secondary Schools Law, 1963 (Greek Communal Chamber Law 10 of 1963) - Recourse against decision refusing to Applicant classification as a secondary education schoolmistress, class "B" under section 11 of the Law - Appropriate Committee erred in law in concluding that Applicant was not eligible for classification in class "B" under section 11(2)(ii) of the Law -

Decision annulled as being contrary to law and in excess and abuse of powers.

G. Ladas, for the Applicant.

G. Tornaritis, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The following Judgment was delivered by:-

TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.: In this Case the Applicant complains, in effect, against a decision (see exhibit 1) of the Review Committee - which functioned under the Greek Communal Chamber - refusing finally to Applicant classification as a secondary education schoolmistress, class B, under section 11 of the Schoolmasters of Communal Secondary Schools Law, 1963 (Greek Communal Chamber Law 10/63). [*849]

Such decision, having been approved by the Greek Communal Chamber, was communicated to Applicant by letter dated 19th February, 1965, (see exhibit 4).

This recourse was filed on the 9th April, 1965,

As, in the meantime, the Transfer of Exercise of Competences of the Greek Communal Chamber and Ministry of Education Law, (Law 12/65) was enacted, this Case has been quite properly filed against the Attorney-General of the Republic, under sections 14 and 1 5 of Law 12/65.

The classification of Applicant, who is a schoolmistress teaching English, had come before the Review Committee, because Applicant had complained to such Committee on the 3rd December, 1964 (see exhibit 3), after she had been given, on the 27th November, 1964, an appointment classifying her only as a schoolmistress class C (see exhibit 7).

By its decision (exhibit 1) the Review Committee held that Applicant was not entitled to be classified in. class B - as she claimed - because section 11 (2) (ii) of Law 10/63 requires as a qualification for classification in class B a degree for which is required a post-gymnasium course of actual studies, abroad, for at

least three years - ("πτυχίον …. δια το οποίον απαιτείται 3ετής τουλάχιστον

μεταγυμνασιακή πραγματική φοίτησις εις το εξωτερικόν")

- and the relevant degree obtained by Applicant has been obtained during a shorter period of studies; as a matter of fact Applicant obtained such degree after a two years' course of studies in the United Kingdom.

The Review Committee concluded its decision by recording that, though it recognized the abilities and the [*850] excellent scientific qualifications of Applicant, it had with regret to reject her application because her post-gymnasium course of studies had not actually been a three-year one.

As it appears from the documents which were before the Review Committee at the time when it reached its sub judice decision, and which documents are exhibits

2 and 2(a) in these proceedings, it has been certified by the Brighton Training College - the institution where Applicant studied in the U.K. - that Applicant has "attended a two-year fulltime course of teacher training at this College beginning in September 1960 and that in this shortened course of training, specially designed for older more mature students she covered the work of the normal three-year course of training. At the end of the course she was examined by the London University Institute of Education and the College, taking the same examinations as the three-year students, and successfully passed the examinations. As a result of her course she obtained the Teacher's Certificate of the London University Institute of Education and therefore became a 'qualified teacher'".

It does not appear to be in issue in this Case that Applicant would qualify, in every respect, for classification in class B, under section 11(2)(ii) of Law 10/63, had the actual period of her studies been a three-year one; the only reason for which the Review Committee has refused classification to Applicant in class B was that Applicant had not studied abroad actually for three years, but for two years only. Thus, this Case turns upon the construction to be placed upon the relevant provision in the said section 11 (2)(ii). [*851]

In construing any statute there is a presumption against such statute intending an injustice or absurdity,

(See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 11th edition, p.193).

Bearing such principle in mind, I have reached the conclusion that the proper construction of section 11(2)(ii) is that it is sought thereby to ensure possession, by those to be classified by virtue thereof, of a certain standard of education, which is to be reached through acquiring a degree for which there is required a period of actual studies abroad of at least three years; qualifications acquired by correspondence are thus excluded; but in my opinion, the three years' actual studies abroad requirement should be taken to refer to the length of the course of studies abroad normally required for a given qualification, and a person who succeeds, exception ally, to obtain, in a shorter period of time, a degree for which, normally, a course of studies abroad of three years is required, is just as eligible for classification under section 1l(2)(ii) of Law 10/63, as a person who obtains the same degree in the normal period of three years.

As a result, I am of the view that the Review Committee erred in law in concluding that Applicant was not eligible for classification in class B, under section 11(2)(ii), because she obtained a degree - for which a three years' course of studies abroad is normally required - in only two years; therefore, its sub judice decision has to be declared to be null and void and of no effect whatsoever, as being contrary to law and in excess and abuse of powers, and the matter has to be reconsidered afresh by the appropriate authority, in the light of this Judgment. [*852]

In view of the above it is not necessary to deal with any other ground raised by Applicant against the sub judice decision of the Review Committee.

Regarding costs, I have decided to award Applicant £15·- against costs.

Sub judice decision annulled.

Order for costs as aforesaid.