جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تحلیل رای » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The purpose of writing this article is to analyze and evaluate the decision of April 9, 2022 of the General Board of the Administrative Court of Justice regarding the annulment of a condition regarding "written commitment of 10 years of doing service without any condition" mentioned in the manual for the registration of the recruitment exam held by executive bodies.After summarizing the evidence and legal grounds used in the decision of General Board, the aforementioned decision has been analyzed by criticizing evidence on three levels of doctrine, laws and judicial precedents.

The supervision over the councils has been anticipated in Articles 105 and 106 of the Constitution. However, there is not any specific name of authority or reference for such supervision and monitoring. According to Article 173 of the Constitution, to investigate the complaints, grievances, and objections of the people against governmental officials, units, and protocols, and for the people to restore their rights, a court named the Court of Administrative Justice will be established under the supervision of the head of the judiciary. The law shall determine the responsibility and the mode of operation of this court. As mentioned, the legislator has confirmed the supervision over the performance of councils. However, the question raised here is about mechanisms that should be used by the Court of Administrative Justice to monitor actions of local councils and their members by considering the regulatory model of the court on governmental officials and protocols as well as the independence of local councils from three powers. There are several legal theories about the competency of the Court of Administrative Justice for investigation and nullification of approvals of Islamic councils. Some of these theories include lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Administrative Justice to join in councils’ ratifications, competency of Court of Administrative Justice for investigation of councils’ approvals, competency of Court of Administrative Justice for investigation of city councils’ approvals, lack of jurisdiction of this court for investigation of approvals of other councils, and competency of public trials for investigation of other councils’ ratifications. Results of the practical procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice confirm the competency of this court for nullification of councils’ approvals. However, the impendent investigation of councils’ approvals by the Court of Administrative Justice is a kind of violation of purpose by legislator considering the existence of boards of the settlement of the dispute. Hence, the monitoring responsibility should be assigned to boards of the settlement of dispute due to the certain mechanism of approvals nullification predicted by the legislator, lack of explicit anticipation of the court interference in previous rules, and the amendment of the Court of Administrative Justice and Councils Act. This assignment, however, depends on choosing the Court of Administrative Justice as the appeal or final deciding court for decisions made by boards of the settlement of the dispute. This is because, despite the independent and specialized nature of boards of the settlement of disputes, they are independent administrative commissions and quasi-judicial institutions. Nevertheless, an investigation by the Court of Administrative Justice is a kind of investigation in a judicial and specialized forum.