Remedies Against the Interview Results Published on 27.12.2021

The Interview Stage and the 27.12.2021 Results

Teacher candidates who meet the criteria for becoming a civil servant under Civil Servants Law No. 657 are, following the written examination they have taken, also subjected to an interview and, if they prove sufficient on the basis of the score obtained at the interview, are appointed. As a result of the interview results of 27.12.2021, many teacher candidates are suffering injustice by coming up against the interview barrier despite having obtained high scores in examinations for which they prepared with great effort over a long period. The interview stage must be conducted in accordance with the law.

It is important for candidates who consider that the interview was conducted unlawfully to object to these interview results and to pursue the legal process in order to obtain the reward for their efforts.

Procedure for Objecting to Interview Results

An objection to the interview results may be made by submitting a petition to the Provincial Directorate of National Education of the province in which the interview was taken, either directly or through the District Directorates of National Education. Following the objection, it is examined and reassessed by the commission that conducted the interview. If the administration does not respond to the objection within 30 days, the objection is deemed to have been rejected and an administrative action may be brought within 60 days.

The objection and litigation process described in the article consists of the following stages:

1. Petition of objectionA petition is submitted to the Provincial Directorate of National Education of the province in which the interview was taken, either directly or through the District Directorates of National Education.
2. Komisyon incelemesiThe commission that conducted the interview examines the objection and reassesses it.
3. 30-day response periodIf the administration does not respond within 30 days, the objection is deemed rejected.
4. Administrative actionAn administrative action may then be filed within 60 days.

As stated by the Ministry of National Education after the interview results were announced, objection petitions will be forwarded to the commissions between 03.01.2021 and 07.01.2021. The results of the objections are planned to be announced within 1-2 weeks after they have been forwarded to the commissions.

Bringing an Administrative Action Without Filing an Objection

Although an administrative action may also be brought without filing an objection, bringing an action without using this objection procedure only gains you a 30-day head start in bringing the action. In other words, you may bring an administrative action within 60 days against the administrative act notified on 27.12.2021 without objecting and without waiting for the 30-day response period.

Council of State Decision on the Subject

Below is the Council of State decision given in an action filed against the act deeming the claimant unsuccessful in the interview examination for the recruitment of contracted teachers.

REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE · C O U N C I L O F S T A T E · TWELFTH CHAMBER

SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST : It is requested that the decision of the … Administrative Chamber of the … Regional Administrative Court dated … and numbered Docket No.:…, rendered pursuant to paragraph six of Article 48 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 and dismissing the request for appeal on points of law as time-barred, be examined on appeal on points of law and reversed.

The proceedings recounted in the decision consist briefly of the following stages:

1. Administrative CourtDismissed the action filed against the act deeming the claimant unsuccessful by awarding 45 points in the interview.
2. Regional Administrative CourtAccepted the appeal, set aside the Administrative Court’s decision and annulled the act in dispute.
3. Regional Administrative Court (cassation)Rejected the defendant administration’s request for cassation as out of time.
4. Twelfth Chamber of the Council of StateUpheld the decision rejecting the request as out of time.

Decisions of the First-Instance Court and the Regional Court of Appeal

PROCEDURAL HISTORY :

Subject of the claim: The claimant sought the annulment of the act dated … and numbered … rejecting the objection made against the act deeming the claimant unsuccessful by awarding 45 points in the interview examination for the recruitment of contracted teachers held by ‘.

Summary of the First-Instance Court’s decision: In the decision of the … Administrative Court dated … and numbered E:…, K:…, it was held that the oral examination was conducted by the examination commission formed in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation; that 4 questions, which were understood to have been prepared in advance, were put to the claimant in the examination; that the report containing the questions asked was signed by the claimant; that the answers to the questions were evaluated by the commission members and that each commission member separately wrote an explanation on the contracted teacher evaluation forms regarding the evaluation; and that, since the report showed which commission member awarded which mark to the claimant, there was no unlawfulness in the evaluation method used by the examination commission or in the procedure for conducting the oral examination in respect of matters capable of being based on concrete information and documents; as regards the evaluation and scoring of the claimant in respect of the criteria set out under 5 headings in the oral examination, considering that these criteria are also based on observation and opinion (such as communication skills, self-confidence and ability to represent), that the evaluation in respect of these criteria can only take shape at the time of the examination and at the discretion of the commission members, and that there is no provision in the legislation on that oral examination requiring the examination to be recorded on video or audio, it was concluded that a review of the evaluation of the claimant, understood to have been made within the scope of the administration’s discretionary power in respect of each of those criteria, would amount to a review of expediency, and that, in view of the clear constitutional provision cited above, it is legally impossible for judicial power to be exercised in the form of a review of expediency; in that case, on the basis of the joint assessment of the information, documents and evaluation forms in the file and the legislative provisions above, the action was dismissed on the ground that there was no unlawfulness in the act deeming the claimant unsuccessful with 45 points in the contracted teacher interview examination and rejecting the claimant’s objection.

Summary of the decision of the Regional Administrative Court: By the decision of the … Administrative Chamber of the … Regional Administrative Court dated … and numbered Docket No.:…, Decision No.:… it was concluded and held that, considering that among the questions asked on educational sciences and general knowledge there were also questions that did not require short answers and could be answered on the basis of interpretation, it was contrary to the ordinary course of life that a person whose reasoning ability and power of expression were assessed at an average of 15 out of 20 points, and who moreover scored 88.08 points in the KPSS examination and ranked 46th in Türkiye, was unable to answer any of the questions asked and was scored 0 (zero) out of 20 points, without any reason being given, in the evaluation on educational sciences and general knowledge; that this showed that the discretionary power had not been exercised objectively; and that, consequently, deeming the claimant unsuccessful as a result of the oral examination was unlawful, in that case, on the ground that it was natural for the claimant to be re-examined orally in due form in line with the reasoning stated above and for action to be taken according to the result, it was decided to accept the appeal, to set aside the administrative court decision that was the subject of the appeal, and to annul the act in dispute.

Appeal Stage and Expiry of the Time Limit

Upon the defendant administration’s appeal on points of law against that decision, by the decision of the Regional Administrative Court under appeal, it was decided to dismiss the appeal on points of law as out of time pursuant to the sixth paragraph of Article 48, on the grounds that the decision rendered upon the request for appellate review of the Administrative Court’s decision had been served on the defendant administration’s counsel on 29/11/2019 and, although the decision clearly stated that the time limit for appeal on points of law was 30 days, it was understood that the appeal on points of law had been filed by a petition registered on 26/02/2020, after the 30-day time limit provided for in Article 46/1 of Law No. 2577 had expired, and that, although the decision subject to the appeal had been served again on the defendant by the … Administrative Court on …, it was clear that this second service would not revive the expired time limit for appeal on points of law.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT : The defendant administration argues that the appeal on points of law was filed in time.

DEFENCE OF THE OPPOSING PARTY : No defence was submitted by the claimant.

RAPPORTEUR JUDGE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE : ..

OPINION : It is considered that the appeal on points of law should be dismissed and the Administrative Court decision, which is in accordance with procedure and law, should be upheld.

IN THE NAME OF THE TURKISH NATION

Having heard the explanations of the Rapporteur Judge and examined the documents in the file, the Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State, deciding the case, deliberated as follows:

LEGAL ASSESSMENT:

Reversal on appeal on points of law of the final decisions of regional administrative courts is possible where one of the grounds set out in Article 49 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 exists.

The decision examined on appeal on points of law is in accordance with procedure and law, and the grounds of appeal raised in the petition are not of a nature requiring the decision to be reversed.

OPERATIVE PART:

For the reasons explained;

1. The defendant administration’s appeal on points of law is dismissed,
2. For the reasons summarised above, it was decided to UPHOLD the decision of the … Administrative Chamber of the … Regional Administrative Court dated … and numbered Docket No.:…, which is the subject of the appeal on points of law and which dismissed the request for appeal on points of law as time-barred,
3. The costs of the appeal on points of law are to be borne by the appellant,
4. and, pursuant to Article 50 of Law No. 2577, to send the file to the … Administrative Court so as to ensure that this decision of affirmance is served on the parties and that a copy of it is sent to the … Administrative Chamber of the … Regional Administrative Court; this decision was rendered unanimously and with finality on 12/10/2020.