The Administrative Litigation Room of Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) has given the reason to ANPE Canarias in its defense of officials in practices named after the oppositions to the 2015 Corps of Teachers after a group of teachers denounced alleged irregularities in the development of the tests.
The union states in a note that the judgment certifies that the qualifying courts applied evaluation standards known to all applicants and that the selective process was carried out with all guarantees.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the resolution of the General Directorate of Personnel of the Ministry of Education, which approved and published the lists of selected applicants in the Corps of Teachers in the specialties of Infant Education, Physical Education, Music and Therapeutic Pedagogy because, among other things, they understood that opponents had been required "a correct spelling" when it "was not foreseen in the bases or in their explanatory notes".
However, the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has specified that this requirement, "in addition to being a basic requirement for those who intend to be a teacher," was present in the bases, specifically 'Guidelines for the preparation and evaluation of the practical exercise ', included in annex IV.
Thus, reference was made to "spelling correction" as a criterion that must be taken into account by the rating courts when assessing the evidence.
Pedro Crespo, president of ANPE Canarias, figure in 84 teachers who have defended the union in this case and applauds the decision of justice, which ends the uncertainty of these professionals.
"We could not understand that in some oppositions to be a teacher, the correct use of our language is not taken into account and, as is normal, neither was the norm in this regard," he says.
"Abnormal" volume of suspense
In addition, the plaintiffs also motivated their denunciation in other alleged irregularities, such as the "abnormal" volume of suspensions in the oppositions, the alleged breach of the parity criteria in several courts or that the anonymity of the aspirants
The court, once all the documentation submitted has been studied, has dismissed all its claims because it has considered that they are "absolutely generic statements and arguments and without any supporting evidence."
"In reality, there is no mention, with the minimum required precision, of a specific irregularity that should lead to the radical nullity of the contested action," he adds.