Court Blocks Seoul Council's Forced Dismissal of Level-4 Official Just 5 Months After Appointment

The fourth division of the Seoul Administrative Court ruled Aug. 14 in favor of a Level-4 official at the Seoul Metropolitan Council Secretariat, identified as A. A had filed a lawsuit against the speaker of the council seeking to overturn a forced-dismissal order.

The court voided the forced dismissal the Seoul Metropolitan Council imposed on A on Dec. 11, 2024, and ordered the council, the defendant, to bear the litigation costs.

A had applied for the position of policy support officer, which the council opened through public recruitment in May 2024, and was formally appointed July 1, 2024. The post carried a guaranteed two-year term running through June 30, 2026. But the council forced A out of the position roughly five months later, on Dec. 11, 2024, citing an organizational restructuring.

Court: "No objective, reasonable grounds for forced dismissal"

The court found that although the council had pursued a reorganization that transferred the policy support role to the expert committee office and abolished the position, that alone could not justify forcing A out during the guaranteed appointment term.

The court particularly noted that the council had already been proceeding with a reassignment of the policy support role before A was appointed, yet still went ahead with a public recruitment for the position. In effect, the council appointed an employee through open recruitment without accounting for a reorganization it already knew was coming. It then dismissed that same employee only months later, citing that very reorganization.

The court also pointed out that the duties of the newly created field complaint officer position overlapped considerably with those of the former policy support officer role, concluding that the disadvantage A suffered from the forced dismissal outweighed any public benefit gained from the reorganization.

The court therefore ruled clearly that the forced dismissal lacked "objective and reasonable grounds" and was an unlawful act that violated the principle of proportionality by deviating from and abusing discretionary authority.

Immediate superior took part in deliberations on dismissal target; procedural violation also confirmed

The court also found a legal violation in the dismissal procedure itself. It confirmed that the secretary-general, A's immediate superior, had taken part in the personnel committee's deliberation and vote on the criteria and selection of the dismissal target. The court noted that A was the sole candidate for dismissal discussed at that meeting, effectively confirming that the deliberation had proceeded on the premise that A alone would be dismissed.

On this, the court ruled that grounds for recusal existed for the immediate superior, and that his involvement in the personnel committee violated Article 10-2, Paragraph 1 of the Local Public Officials Act.

A had been appointed through a lawful process and had carried out the job without any grounds for disciplinary action or markedly poor performance evaluations. Yet just five months after being appointed, A was abruptly forced out of the position.

A said that when a public institution hires someone, it is not simply providing that person with a job. Particularly when a position with a fixed term is filled through open recruitment, A said, the institution must bear the trust and responsibility that comes with it.

The Seoul Metropolitan Council, however, dismissed an employee it had itself appointed through open recruitment only months later, and the court ultimately found that action unlawful.

The ruling is being viewed as a case in which the court clearly found that an action taken by the Seoul Metropolitan Council lacked objective and reasonable grounds and violated the principle of proportionality.

The council, however, is reportedly set to appeal the first-instance ruling.

On this, lawmaker Yu Ki-hoon of the Seoul Metropolitan Council (Dobong-gu Constituency No. 3) said, "The council must take seriously the first-instance court ruling regarding the dismissal of the policy support officer during his term of appointment, and recognize the gravity of this matter," during the Seoul Metropolitan Council Secretariat's work report to the Steering Committee at the 339th extraordinary session on Monday.

Yu referred to an Aug. 28 report by the M Ilbo, noting that the court had ruled the abolition of the position unlawful in the case of a policy support officer with a two-year term who was dismissed after only five months, and questioned the council's future response.