您的瀏覽器不支援JavaScript語法,但是並不影響您獲取本網站的內容
司法院內部與外部景觀圖片動畫
::: | | 大法官 | 案件審理 | 大法官解釋 | 相關法規 | |
 
多條件查詢頁面按鈕

 

:::
 

大法官解釋表頭

(釋字第 341 號 )      友善列印PRINT  
Interpretation
J.Y.
Interpretation
NO.341 
Date 1994/3/11
Issue Does Section 3 of the Regulations for the Taiwan Province Basic-Level 1990 Civil Servants Specific Examination issued by the Examination Yuan constitute a violation of Article 7 of the Constitution?
Holding
1
    The Regulations for the Taiwan Province Basic-Level 1990 Civil Servants Specific Examination were issued by the Examination Yuan based on its statutory authority. Under Section 3 of the aforementioned Regulations, the enrollment, qualification and appointment in connection with the examination thereof shall be held and based on separate administrative divisions, and any participant who has satisfied the criteria of the examiners must serve for the required period within the designated administrative division where he or she initially enrolled for the aforementioned examination. Such a policy for the examination, coping with the need of human resources for the position of basic level officers and considering the willingness of those participating in the examination, is deemed a necessary measure and is not inconsistent with the right of equality prescribed in the Constitution.  



Reasoning
1
    The Examination Yuan as the supreme examination institution of this government based on its legal authority may prescribe rules for examination. This power is not in contradiction with the Constitution if such rules are prescribed within its scope of authority or cause no infringement on the right of the people to attend government examinations. This rationale has been illustrated in the holding of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 155. All the people are deemed equal before the law as provided in Article 7 of the Constitution. Further, all the people have an equal right to attend examinations in order to be qualified for appointment as governmental employees to civil service positions. Nevertheless, the term “equal” as mentioned above refers to virtual equality. Hence, with a view to coping with the demand in reality and with the purpose of holding an examination, the imposition of certain necessary restrictions may hardly be deemed inconsistent with the said principle of equality as explicitly reasoned in the holding of Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 205. The Regulations for the Taiwan Province Basic-Level 1990 Civil Servants Specific Examination were issued by the Examination Yuan based on its statutory authority. Under Section 3 of the aforementioned Regulations, the enrollment, qualification and appointment in connection with the examination thereof shall be held and based on separate administrative divisions. Any participant in such an examination who has satisfied the criteria of the examiners must serve for the required period within the designated administrative division where he or she initially enrolled for the aforementioned examination. Such a policy for the examination, coping with the need of human resources for the position of basic level officers and considering the willingness of those participating in the examination, is deemed a necessary measure. The above policy runs parallel to the situation where the examination authority simultaneously holds designated examinations for admitting personnel to the provincial or subordinate administrative institutions and governmental undertakings in each city or hsien (county) based on the need of enrollment for each division for the examination, respectively. The examiners of such an examination exercising their statutory authority and taking into consideration the results of the examination as well as the shortage of personnel reported by each city and hsien (county), respectively, set the criteria of qualifications for various categories of examination of each division, thus resulting in different criteria for the same category of examination held in each designated division. Therefore, the said policy of which persons participating in the examination are informed in advance constitutes no violation of the right of equality prescribed in Article 7 of the Constitution.

'Translated by Dr. Cheng-Hwa Kwang, Professor of Law, Ming Chuan University
Opinion Chinese only
 

BACK

 
 
::: Home 中文(Chinese) Site Map
 
使用聲明 Copyright©2004 JUSTICES OF THE CONSTITUTIONSL COURT. JUDICIAL YUAN 本網站建議使用解析度為1024*768全彩及Explorer5.5以上瀏覽器     通過A+等級無障礙網頁檢測
多條件查詢頁面連結點 解釋爭點總覽頁面連結點