Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 2:06:57 GMT -5
Thus, it is well known that the qualification criteria for the selection process exercises in the Public Administration must be prior to the qualification , and published for the knowledge of all applicants before the tests are carried out (Ruling of the Supreme Court of July 20, 2022).
It is different if in the recent ruling of the Supreme Court it discusses whether or not the court's minutes contained qualification criteria, or if they come to modify, or restrict, the provisions of the bases.
On the other hand, and with respect to the High Court's assertion in the ruling we have been commenting on (the irrelevance of comparing the ruling with those of the rest of the candidates), it Fax Lists could collide or qualify the meaning of the previous jurisprudence ( ad exemplum , the ruling of the Supreme Court of December 17, 2020): “ For completeness, the appellant has in no case made a comparison with the assessments made by the same members of the court regarding the exercises of the candidates who passed said phase, forgetting that we "We are faced with a selective process in which the court must choose those candidates who demonstrate greater knowledge within the positions offered."
Are we then facing new parameters of the Supreme Court in the evaluation of the evidence of a selective process? Or is it the particular casuistry of the case, and is it not applicable to other cases?
Only time will tell in what line our highest Tribune advances, and as jurists specialized in administrative and administrative litigation law, we cannot but hope that it will be so with the maximum guarantee of the principles of equality, merit and capacity, together with the principles of legal certainty, publicity and transparency that must govern in any case access to public office, as it cannot be otherwise.
It is different if in the recent ruling of the Supreme Court it discusses whether or not the court's minutes contained qualification criteria, or if they come to modify, or restrict, the provisions of the bases.
On the other hand, and with respect to the High Court's assertion in the ruling we have been commenting on (the irrelevance of comparing the ruling with those of the rest of the candidates), it Fax Lists could collide or qualify the meaning of the previous jurisprudence ( ad exemplum , the ruling of the Supreme Court of December 17, 2020): “ For completeness, the appellant has in no case made a comparison with the assessments made by the same members of the court regarding the exercises of the candidates who passed said phase, forgetting that we "We are faced with a selective process in which the court must choose those candidates who demonstrate greater knowledge within the positions offered."
Are we then facing new parameters of the Supreme Court in the evaluation of the evidence of a selective process? Or is it the particular casuistry of the case, and is it not applicable to other cases?
Only time will tell in what line our highest Tribune advances, and as jurists specialized in administrative and administrative litigation law, we cannot but hope that it will be so with the maximum guarantee of the principles of equality, merit and capacity, together with the principles of legal certainty, publicity and transparency that must govern in any case access to public office, as it cannot be otherwise.