Chamber A of the Federal Court of Appeals of Córdoba annulled a 2017 competition at the Faculty of Law of UNC. The court sided with professor Eduardo Pintore, who had reported irregularities in the evaluation of credentials. The ruling means that the university must issue a new administrative act.
El fallo obliga a la Facultad de Derecho a repetir el proceso de selección.
The origin of the academic conflict
The dispute began when a position for adjunct professor in Public International Law was put up for competition. Pintore challenged the third candidate, Oscar Benítez, for presenting "irregular" or unverified credentials. He also questioned the exemption granted to him from holding a doctoral degree, a requirement set forth in the call for applications.
The evaluation jury rejected the challenges and upheld the ranking order. Pintore insisted that the decision had been arbitrary and without legal basis. After exhausting administrative remedies at UNC, he appealed to the Federal Court, as permitted by the Higher Education Law.
La Sala A de la Cámara Federal de Apelaciones de Córdoba anuló un concurso de 2017 en la Facultad de Derecho de la UNC.
Irregularities in the jury's evaluation
The appellate court noted "remarkable omissions and deviations" in the allocation of scores. It pointed out that there were no clear grounds as to which publications, courses, or awards were considered. It emphasized that the partial annulment issued by UNC lacked justification, as it kept some candidates and arbitrarily excluded others.
Judges Abel Sánchez Torres and Graciela Montesi concluded that the competition should be annulled in its entirety. They recalled that the jury is obliged to justify each score to ensure proper judicial review. They indicated that the lack of reasoning renders the decision a "null administrative act."
Pintore impugnó al tercer postulante, Oscar Benítez, por presentar antecedentes “irregulares” o sin acreditar.
Consequences for UNC and next steps
The ruling requires the Faculty of Law to repeat the selection process. The case once again exposes shortcomings in the faculty selection mechanisms at public universities. For the judges, transparency in these processes is essential to safeguard equal conditions.
The decision adds to other judicial precedents in which the actions of UNC's evaluation panels were questioned. With this ruling, it is now established that competitions without detailed justification violate legality. Now, the university must initiate a new procedure in accordance with regulatory requirements.
Pintore insistió en que la decisión había sido arbitraria y sin sustento legal.
