Article 52 of the Regulations Governing the Selection of the Teachers and Staff for Provincial, County and Municipal Level Schools in Taiwan Province, as amended and promulgated by the Taiwan Provincial Government on August 24, 1978, prescribes that each school shall make a list of the names of teachers who will not be rehired after their employment contracts have expired, state the reason for not offering reemployment, and make a report to the competent educational authorities to be used as a reference.　The purpose of this provision is to urge schools to deal carefully with the matter of not rehiring teachers.　This provision does not contradict the Constitution.

　　　 Article 52 of the Regulations Governing the Selection of the Teachers and Staff for Provincial, County and Municipal Level Schools in Taiwan Province, as amended and promulgated by the Taiwan Provincial Government on August 24, 1978, prescribes: “Junior colleges and the above, elementary schools, junior high, and high schools shall make a list of the names of teachers who will not be rehired after their employment contracts have expired, state the reason for not offering reemployment, and make a report to the competent educational authorities to be used as a reference.”　This is the process regarding not rehiring a teacher whose employment contract has ended.　The purpose of its clearly stating that the school shall make a list of names, explain the reason for not offering reemployment, and make a report to the competent supervising authority to be used as a reference is to urge schools to deal carefully with the matter of not rehiring teachers.　This provision is not in contradiction with the intention of protecting the people’s right to life and the educator’s livelihood under Articles 15 and 165 of the Constitution.　Since Ordinances J.4.T. No. 30978 issued on May 9, 1977, and J.4.T. No. 41410 issued on July 15, 1977, by the Office of Education of the Taiwan Provincial Government are not bases for the final judgment, the requirements for Interpretation cases petitioned by the people will not be satisfied.　Thus, there is no question of the involvement of an interpretation of the Constitution.