The Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has agreed with ANPE Canarias in its defense of the trainee officials appointed after the oppositions to the Teachers’ Corps in 2015 after a group of teachers denounced alleged irregularities in the development of the tests.
The union states in a note that the sentence certifies that the qualifying courts applied evaluation standards known to all the applicants and that the selection process was carried out with all the guarantees.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the resolution of the General Directorate of Personnel of the Ministry of Education by which the lists of selected applicants in the Corps of Teachers in the specialties of Early Childhood Education, Physical Education, Music and Therapeutic Pedagogy were approved and published. because, among other things, they understood that the opponents had been required “a correct spelling” when this “was not provided for in the bases or in their explanatory notes.”
However, the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has specified that this requirement, “in addition to being a basic requirement for those who intend to be a teacher”, was present in the bases, specifically ‘Guidelines for the preparation and evaluation of the practical exercise’, included in annex IV.
Thus, reference was made to “spelling correction” as a criterion that must be taken into account by the qualifying courts when evaluating the evidence.
Pedro Crespo, president of ANPE Canarias, estimates that 84 teachers have been defended by the union in this case and applauds the court’s decision, which puts an end to the uncertainty of these professionals.
“We could not understand that in some oppositions to be a teacher the correct use of our language is not taken into account and, as is normal, the regulations in this regard did not contemplate it either,” he points out.
“Abnormal” volume of suspenses
In addition, the plaintiffs also based their complaint on other alleged irregularities, such as the “abnormal” volume of failures in the oppositions, the alleged breach of the parity criteria in various courts or that, in their opinion, the anonymity of the applicants was not respected. aspirants.
The court, after studying all the documentation presented, has dismissed all their claims because it has considered that they are “absolutely generic statements and arguments and without any supporting evidence.”
“In reality, there is no mention, with the minimum precision required, of a specific irregularity that should lead to the radical nullity of the contested action,” he adds.
Facebook Comments
Disqus