ขณะนี้อยู่ระหว่างปรับปรุง Theme ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก

ขนาดอักษร

ข้อมูลกฎหมาย/กฎ คำพิพากษา คำสั่งของศาลปกครองสูงสุดในรูปแบบดิจิทัล
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง
สรุปคำแปลวินิจฉัยของศาลปกครอง

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2564, 09:18น.

Unlawful Order to Assist Other Department in the Performance of Functions

A plan and policy analyst position was held to a higher performance standard than a government service officer position. The job description of the plan and policy analyst and the government service officer position were distinctly different in terms of knowledge and capabilities. The Mayor ordered a municipal officer, a policy and plan analyst, to assist other department in the performance of administration tasks without a specific job description or available position. The Mayor’s order resulted in decreasing roles and responsibilities of the municipal officer and lacking opportunities to increase knowledge, capabilities and experience required for promotion to a higher-level position. The Plaintiff still held the plan and policy analysis position and received the same amount of salary, and was not deprived of either rights and benefits, or a status of a municipality officer; however, the Plaintiff who was ordered to assist other department in the performance of functions was inevitably aggrieved or injured. Thus, the Plaintiff was entitled to file a case with the Court, according to Section 42 paragraph one of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999). Although the Mayor shall have power to manage personnel in the Municipality so as to successfully provide public services, he must have justification to issue the order and shall comply with the prescribed laws, regulations and rules. If the Mayor did so, his discretion would be lawfully exercised. The job description and duties and responsibilities of the plan and policy analyst (Level 4) and the government service officer position were clearly different. In addition, there was no fact presented that any effect or injury would occur if the order was not issued. Accordingly, the Mayor’s issuance of the order was the unlawful exercise of discretion

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 9 ก.ค. 2564, 13:06น.

Unlawful Order to Not Score an Examination

The Plaintiff’s mobile phone inside his bag, which was placed outside an examination room, continuously rang about 10 times while he was taking an examination for entry to the Doctor of Medicine program. As a result, the Defendant No.2 did not score the Plaintiff’s test paper providing that he violated the Rule of the Consortium of Thai Medical Schools on Examination which requires an examinee to turn off his or her mobile phone or other communication devices. The Administrative Court held that the Plaintiff complied with the Rule. He powered off his mobile phone but the sound ringing from his mobile phone was an alarm which he set to study. The Plaintiff could not use the mobile phone while he was taking the exam since the mobile phone was 20 - 25 meters away from the examination room. Although, the Rule provides that if it is found that there is a sound or a communication signal, or there is incompliance with the Rule, it is deemed that there is an intention to cheat an examination and the exam will not be scored, it was not an absolute presumption which could not be proved otherwise. The Defendant No.2 exercised its discretion inconsistent with the legal purpose and exercised its power without considering facts along with other circumstances. The order not to score the examination was unlawfully issued by the Defendant No.2. The Supreme Administrative Court affirmed the decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance to revoke the order of the Defendant No.2 not to score the examination for entry to the Doctor of Medicine program in the year of 2011.

ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 8 มี.ค. 2564, 09:15น.
ปรับปรุงเมื่อ 8 ก.พ. 2564, 15:16น.

Condition of Degree Recognition Inconsistent with the Law

The Plaintiff No.1 applied for a license for professional practice (associate engineer) to the Defendant but it requested the Plaintiff No.1 to take an examination of specific required courses for obtaining the license. The Supreme Administrative Court held that the requirement provided in the Council of Engineers Regulation on Recognition of Degree, Diploma, or Certificate for Regulated Engineering Professional Practice, B.E. 2543 (2000) was not applied to the Plaintiff No.1 since he enrolled in a program prior to the academic year of 2001. However, the Plaintiff No.1 was subject to the Announcement of the Council of Engineers No. 4/2554 on Application for a License for Professional Practice (Associate Engineer). He graduated in Bachelor of Engineering (Civil Engineering) from A University by earning more credits as required by the Announcement; he thus did not have to pass either an examination of specific engineering courses or basic engineering and specific engineering courses. Additionally, the Defendant recognized the Engineering program of A University by the condition that an applicant for the license who graduated from A University has to take an examination of engineering for obtaining the license without any exception. The condition did comply with the Council of Engineers Regulation on Issuance of a License for Professional Practice (Associate Engineer) and the Announcement of the Council of Engineers No. 4/2554 so the rules were not enforceable. Therefore, the Defendant’s order requesting the Plaintiff No.1 to take the examination for acquiring the license was unlawful pursuant to Section 9 paragraph one (1) of the Act on Establishment of Administrative Courts and Administrative Court Procedure, B.E. 2542 (1999).