수석교사제 헌법소원 심판청구인은 「교육공무원법」 제29조의3(수석교사의 임용 등) 제4항, 「교육공무원 승진규정」 제2조(적용대상) 제2항, 「교육공무원법」 제29조의3 제3항의 위임법령인 「교육공무원임용령」 제9조의8(수석교사의 우대) 제2항, 「공무원수당 등에 관한 규정」 제17조의2(관리업무수당)와 제18조의6(직급보조비) 등이 헌법에 위반된다고 주장하여 헌법소원 심판청구를 하였다. 헌법소원 심판청구인은 수석교사에게는 임기 중에 행정관리직렬의 자격 취득과 전직을 허용하지 않지만, 교육전문직(장학사·연구사·장학관·연구관)은 재직 또는 임기 중 해당 직위에서 행정관리직렬(교감·교장)의 자격 취득과 전직 및 승진을 할 수 있어 헌법에서 보장한 평등권, 직업선택의 자유, 행복추구권을 침해받는다고 주장한다. 수석교사에게 다른 직렬에 상응하는 대우 없이 임기 중에 교장·교감자격 취득과 전직을 제한하는 것뿐만 아니라, 상응하는 대우가 있다고 하더라도 차별하여 제한하는 것은 헌법에서 보장한 평등권과 직업선택의 자유를 침해하는 것이다. 따라서 「교육공무원법」 제29조의3(수석교사의 임용 등) 제4항과 「교육공무원 승진규정」 제2조(적용대상) 제2항은 적어도 둘 가운데 하나는 위헌 결정이 예상된다.
Master teacher system was introduced to change an existing unified teacher promotion system into dual system which consists of ‘Instruction and Management’. Some of those who were appointed in 2012 and filed constitutional petition claimed that the original purpose of mater teacher system became distorted owing to the difference between the law and its enforcement ordinance. He also argued that Article 29-3(4) of Public Educational Officials Act, Article 2(2) of the Promotion Criteria of Public Educational Officials, the Official Appointment Regulations 9-8(2) entrusted by Article 29-3(4) of Public Educational Officials Act, and Regulations on Public Officials’ Allowance 17-2 and 18-6 infringed on equal right, Berufsfreiheit and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the constitution. Insisting that the selection of master teachers is not the promotion, but just change of position, the Ministry of Education sets a limit on master teachers promoting to vice principal or principal, while administrators such as school inspectors and supervisors are allowed to acquire qualification or promotion from the current position to other position. Other positions are permitted to move to another position while master teacher are restricted to move to. This is obviously an infringement of master teachers’ Berufsfreiheit. In conclusion, restriction on master teachers’ promotion to supervisors or principals during their terms, without treatment corresponding to other positions, even with the treatment, violates equal rights and Berufsfreiheit constitutionally guaranteed. Therefore, as a claimant for constitutional petition, one or both of Article 29-3(4) of Public Educational Officials Act and Article 2(2) of the Promotion Criteria of Public Educational Officials are expected to be found unconstitutional.
(0)
(0)