大學教師升等權利救濟途徑選擇之研究─以教育部授權自行審查學校為核心

NCUIR > College of Hakka Studies > Graduate Institute of Law and Government > Electronic Thesis & Dissertation > Item 987654321/68382

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/68382

Title:	大學教師升等權利救濟途徑選擇之研究─以教育部授權自行審查學校為核心
Authors:	楊顯龍;Yang,Hsien-Lung
Contributors:	法律與政府研究所
Keywords:	教師升等;申訴;再申訴;訴願;行政訴訟;授權自審;救濟途徑;faculty promotion;appeal;re-appeal;administrative appeal;administrative litigation;delegate to conduct the evaluation process fully;roadmap for remedy
Date:	2015-07-30
Issue Date:	2015-09-23 11:30:57 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	國立中央大學
Abstract:	目前專科以上學校教師資格可分為四個等級，分別為講師、助理教授、副教授、教授。教師資格之晉升代表專業學術能力與學術聲望得到肯認。雖然教師升等相關爭議時有所聞，然而教育部仍預計自105學年度起全面授權大學自審，屆時大學教師之升等案將全部由各該大學自行審定。依教師法第33條規定，對於大學所為升等審定之救濟途徑共有申訴、再申訴、訴願及行政訴訟程序，本研究主要目的在於解析各救濟途徑並分析相關爭議案件後，歸納具體可行之救濟理由及提供救濟途徑選擇之策略，以確保教師升等權益。　　根據分析結果發現，在救濟時提出之理由方面，如結論附表所示理由類型，為救濟機關認為可採者。在選擇策略上，如欲以時間換取升等空間，等待友善的教評會改組上任或有其他經濟收入之考量等，不妨踐行各級救濟途徑，選擇「申訴、再申訴、訴願、行政訴訟」之救濟途徑組合；若欲快刀斬亂麻，儘早使升等案落幕者，則不妨減少救濟途徑層級，於遵守訴願先行之程序後，向行政法院提起救濟，而選擇「訴願、行政訴訟」之救濟途徑組合；至於情勢不明，現況不易判斷者，則可先提申訴，再視情況，選擇再申訴或訴願途徑。;There are four ranks for the faculty within Taiwan higher education institutions: Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor. Promotion from one to the next involves a formal evaluation process of the applicant′s body of work. Disputes related to the evaluation process are not rare. Nonetheless the Ministry of Education announced that　all higher education institutions will be fully delegated to conduct the evaluation process from September 2016 onwards. Pursuant to article 33 of Teachers’ Act, if the applicant believes having been wronged by the evaluation process, he has the options to lodge an appeal, a re-appeal, an administrative appeal or an administrative litigation. Based on the cases related to the evaluation process, the main purposes of this research are to analyze advantages and disadvantages of different route of remedies, make inferences from the commission’s and the court’s reasoning and recommend a roadmap for the remedies. A chart of summary of arguments presented by the applicants and the reasoning of the Teachers′ Appeal Review Committee, the Administrative Appeal Review Committee and the administrative court is offered in the concluding chapter. According to this research, the author recommends the following roadmap for remedy. First, if the applicant chooses to wait for the reshuffle of a more friendly Teachers’ Review Committee or　has financial concern, he might tread the longest remedial route：first going through an appeal, a re-appeal, an administrative appeal, and then resorting to an administrative litigation. Second, if the applicant wants to end the controversy as soon as possible, he could lodge an administrative appeal and then commence an administrative litigation. Finally, if the prospect of different routes is uncertain, he could choose to lodge an appeal, and then file a re-appeal or an administrative appeal depending on the surrounding circumstances.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Law and Government] Electronic Thesis & Dissertation

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	733	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...