The limits of the interpretation of judges in the capacity of distinguishing rights in Article 73 of the Constitution. Criticism of judgments 1008 to 1035 of the General Board of the Administrative Justice Court (subject of converting the status of veterans - paragraph (d) of Note 20 of the 1400 Budget Law)

According to the rulings No. 1008 to 1035 of the General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice, the three conditions of being a full-time beneficiary, paying insurance, and extending the contract were annulled, and thus, all individuals who were employed part-time, without paying insurance, and temporarily in the executive agencies covered by Article 2 of the Comprehensive Law on Veterans in any way, were subject to a change in status, and the agency must proceed with issuing a formal-final ruling (after legal formalities). This is while, according to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 156 of the Constitution, the judiciary is responsible for realizing justice and realizing public rights and supervising the proper implementation of laws. The Constitution, in Chapter Three, Rights of the Nation (Articles 19 to 42), stands as an explanation of public rights, the rights that the nation has towards the sovereign. One of the most important of these rights is embodied in Article 28: “The government is obliged to create employment opportunities and equal conditions for all individuals to obtain jobs, while respecting the needs of society for various jobs.” Basically, the Labor Law and the Social Security Law are mandatory laws, and all judicial authorities and executive officials must comply with the provisions of the law. So far, more than two hundred and ten thousand people have been changed since the implementation of the ruling of paragraph (d) of Note 20 of the 1400 budget, in such a way that many specialized positions in organizations have been changed to general positions. Obviously, the implementation of the above ruling will impose many problems on the administrative system in this regard. On the one hand, this ruling has caused undue discrimination and disrupted the proper administrative system, and in the implementation of this ruling, it also contradicts paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 3 of the Constitution. The ruling issued by the General Board of the Court of Administrative Justice is practically an interpretation that goes beyond the legislative purpose, and part of the country’s laws have been implicitly repealed, and in a sense, the scope of the law has been expanded.