Rejection of the Request for Cancellation of Some Rules of the Teaching Profession Law No. 7354 and Cancellation of Some Rules
A. Examination of the phrase “… by the Ministry of National Education …” contained in paragraph (4) of article 3 of the Law and paragraph (1) of Article 4 of the Law
3 Of the Teaching Profession Law, which is the subject of the case. paragraph (4) of the article clearly and clearly regulates the career steps related to the teaching profession. In this respect, it cannot be said that the rule is uncertain and unpredictable; therefore, the rule does not violate the criterion of legality. In addition, the teaching profession is divided into career steps in accordance with the principles of career and merit. The purpose of creating career steps for the teaching profession is to ensure that teachers progress in their profession in accordance with the principles of career and merit, to ensure their professional development and to improve their personal rights accordingly. In the light of these evaluations, it is concluded that the rule is in the public interest.
As stated in paragraph (1) of Article 4 of the Law, “…By the Ministry of National Education… In the rule containing the phrase “, it is seen that the basic principles and principles of the qualifications to be sought for teacher candidates and the legal framework are determined. Although it is determined by law, taking into account that determinations may need to be made in accordance with developing and changing conditions in terms of management technique, the administration has been authorized to make arrangements within the framework of these qualifications. There is no situation contrary to the principles of certainty and inalienability of legislative authority when the legislator leaves the authority to regulate which courses will be given after drawing up the legal framework regarding the qualifications to be sought for teacher candidates in this way to the administration. Which qualifications can be taught by prospective teachers.
The Constitutional Court rejected the cancellation requests by deciding that the rules were not Unconstitutional for the reasons explained above.
B. The second sentence of paragraph (3) of Article 5 of the law: “…As a result of the evaluation made by the Nomination Evaluation Commission …” (4) paragraph (ç) subparagraph and ( 6)
In paragraph (6) of Article 5 of Law No. 7354, it is arranged that the Candidate Teacher Training Program, the Candidate Teacher Training Program and the establishment of the Candidate Evaluation Commission, as well as other procedures and principles related to the candidate teaching process will be regulated by regulation.
It has been seen that the scope of the Candidate Training Program has not been fully established with the formation, powers, working principles and objective criteria of the Nomination Evaluation Commission, which is envisaged to evaluate the nomination process with the rule subject to the case. it is clearly and clearly arranged in such a way as to leave no room for doubt. It has been concluded that the rule is contrary to the obligation to restrict fundamental rights and freedoms by law due to the provision that an unlimited, indefinite and wide area should be left to regulation without any legal framework being drawn up and the basic principles on an issue being determined. Regarding the right to remain in the public service, which is provided for in the Constitution to be regulated exclusively by law.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the rule was unconstitutional and should be annulled. Due to the cancellation of paragraph (6) of Article 5 of Law No. 7354, the second sentence of paragraph (3) and the phrase “… As a result of the evaluation made by the Candidacy Evaluation Commission …” included in paragraph (ç) have been added. The provisions of paragraph (4) of this article are no longer valid and it is not considered necessary to check the compliance of these rules with the constitution.
C. Subparagraph (b) of paragraph (1) of article 6 of the Law and the first sentence of paragraph (2): “… and those who have completed the studies prescribed for head teacher in the fields of professional development …” Sentence and Paragraph (8)
According to paragraph (b) of Article 6 (1) of Law No. 7354, in order to apply for the written exam for the title of specialist teacher, it is necessary to have completed the minimum studies prescribed for specialist teaching. Areas of professional development. In the first sentence of paragraph (2) of the said article, it is stipulated that specialized teachers who have served in the field of specialized teaching for at least ten years and have not received a stop progress penalty and have completed the Head Teacher Training Program will serve.
Those who have completed the studies prescribed for head teachers in the fields of professional development for at least 240 hours can apply for a written exam for the title of head teacher and in the above-mentioned sentence “… and having completed the studies prescribed for head teachers in the fields of professional development …” constitutes the other rule subject to the lawsuit. In paragraph (8) of the article subject to the lawsuit, it is stated that the procedures and principles related to rising up the career ladder of the teaching profession will be regulated by regulation.
It seems that the basic principles, scope and nature of the minimum studies required in the professional development fields, which are among the conditions for rising up the teaching career ladder, have not been clearly and Decently regulated. Leave no room for doubt. As with the regulation on the right to stay in the public service, which has also been the subject of consideration before, the Constitution provides that a matter related to the private affairs of public servants will be regulated exclusively by law. In this context, since it is envisaged that an unlimited, indefinite and wide area is left to regulation without any legal framework being drawn up and determined, it has been concluded that the rules are incompatible with the condition that fundamental rights and freedoms are limited by law. Basic principles on a subject related to the personal affairs of public officials.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the rules were unconstitutional and should be revoked.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.