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
|