In public institutions, ending the managerial duties of staff serving as branch manager, district service centre manager or in similar managerial positions, assigning them to the provincial central organisation, and appointing lower-ranking staff (for example, a section chief) as managers in their place is one of the most frequently disputed measures in Turkish public personnel law. In such measures taken by the administration, the field for the grounds very often contains nothing more than the phrase “service requirements” or “internal institutional need”.
So, is the administration’s discretionary power regarding appointments and transfers unlimited? Is an abstract reference to “service requirements” alone sufficient to render the measure lawful? The Civil Servants Law No. 657 (DMK) and the settled case law of the Council of State (Danıştay) clearly establish that discretionary power is not absolute and is limited by the public interest, service requirements, and the principles of career and merit.
1. The Concept of “Service Requirements” in Administrative Acts and Its Legal Meaning
In administrative law, service requirements means taking a measure because of mandatory changes in the organisational structure of a public institution, the need to carry out the public service more effectively, or a concrete staffing need. Where the administration acts in an abstract manner or without reasons, merely relying on its discretionary power, this is unlawful and subject to judicial review.
The phrase “service requirements” in administrative acts is not a magic formula that eliminates judicial review. When changing a staff member’s place of duty or rendering their title inactive, the administration must rely on objective, concrete and verifiable evidence.
The following situations may be given as examples of service needs that can be regarded as legally legitimate:
- Closure of the public unit by a statutory regulation or its merger with another unit,
- A revision of staff positions in the institutional organisation chart in accordance with the legislation,
- The emergence of a temporary project, disaster or crisis requiring special technical knowledge and professional experience,
- The existence of concrete, objective and verifiable reports showing that the staff member is unsuccessful or inadequate in their managerial role.
By contrast, generic and abstract grounds such as “the discretion of the administration”, “deemed appropriate” or “for the purpose of ensuring coordination” do not on their own create a presumption of lawfulness in judicial review.
2. Can a Branch Manager Be Recalled to Headquarters? Protection of Position and Title
Recalling a branch manager to headquarters cannot be done solely on the basis of discretionary power unless there is a concrete service need consistent with the legislation, an inspection report or inadequate performance. Moving staff to a passive role while the need for the managerial position continues violates the principles of career and merit.
When a public manager is removed from office, the following two legal distinctions are important:
- Termination of the Managerial Duty: Although the administration has the power, under certain conditions, to withdraw a managerial assignment, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
- Deprivation of the Position Title and the Grade Acquired as a Right: Appointing staff to a lower position without their consent, or effectively stripping them of authority and moving them to a passive office, is clearly unlawful.
Where the branch manager subject to removal has been successful in the role, has no disciplinary penalty and no negative findings in internal audits, the likelihood of the measure being annulled by the administrative court is quite high.
3. Is It Lawful to Assign Lower-Ranking Staff (a Section Chief) in Their Place?
Removing the actual branch manager and appointing a lower-ranking section chief as acting manager in their place concretely proves that the need for a manager at the service centre continues. This refutes the administration’s “service requirements” defence and renders the measure defective in terms of its purpose and grounds.
In this frequently encountered scenario, administrative courts and the Council of State ask the following critical question: “If the need for the branch manager position continues, why has this duty been taken away from the actual manager appointed according to the principles of merit and career and transferred to a hierarchically lower-ranking staff member?”
If the administration cannot give a legally valid, concrete and documented answer to this question, it is concluded that the change of duty did not arise from an administrative necessity, but from an intention to punish the staff member or to remove them for subjective motives.
4. Temporary Assignment, or Disguised Removal and Sidelining?
Temporary assignment is an exceptional administrative procedure of fixed duration, used to meet immediate and extraordinary needs of the public service. Keeping staff away from their principal duties for months or for an indefinite period is not a temporary assignment but a disguised punishment and sidelining measure.
When reviewing the lawfulness of measures taken under the guise of temporary assignment, the following criteria are examined:
- The assignment letter must clearly specify the start and end dates. Assignments of indefinite duration are unlawful.
- There must be a concrete job description notified to the staff member at headquarters. Leaving the person without duties is an indication of mobbing and stripping of authority.
- The assignment must be consistent with the civil servant’s salary grade acquired as a right and their title.
- No unjust loss should be caused in financial entitlements such as supplementary payments, executive allowance and special service allowance.
5. Limits of Discretionary Power under Law No. 657
Article 76 of the Civil Servants Law No. 657 grants institutions the power to change the duties and places of duty of civil servants. However, this power is limited by the fundamental principles of the Law:
- Principle of Career (Art. 3): Aims to give civil servants the opportunity to advance to the highest grades within their class, in line with the knowledge and training required for the services they perform.
- Principle of Merit (Art. 3): Aims to base entry into public service, progression and promotion within classes, and the termination of duties on a merit system, and to ensure the security of civil servants.
- Consistency of Grade and Duty (Art. 45): No civil servant may be employed outside their class or in a position of a grade below their grade within their class.
In light of this legal framework, the administration’s discretionary power does not mean arbitrariness. Measures taken for reasons other than the public interest and service requirements are defective in terms of their grounds and purpose.
6. Precedent Decisions of the Council of State and the Judicial Approach
As consistently emphasised in the decisions of the Plenary Session of the Administrative Law Chambers and the 2nd Chamber of the Council of State, the administration’s power to appoint and remove managers is subject to judicial review. Measures taken without concrete evidence are annulled.
| Subject of the Legal Dispute | Approach of the Council of State and Legal Criterion | Judicial Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Discretionary Power of the Administration | Not absolute or unlimited; limited by the public interest and service requirements. | Measures without reasons are annulled. |
| Allegation of Poor Performance | An abstract allegation is insufficient; it must be substantiated by audit, inspection or personnel records. | Removal without documentation is unlawful. |
| Existence of an Investigation | Does not on its own constitute grounds for changing the place of duty or removing a title. | The principle of proportionality must be observed. |
| Appointment to a Lower-Level Position | Directly violates the principles of career and merit. | The measure is annulled and reinstatement is ensured. |
| Appointment of Lower-Ranking Staff | Shows that the service need continues and that the real reason has been concealed. | Defective in terms of purpose. |
| Reasons Produced After the Fact | Excuses created later at the litigation stage are legally invalid. | The date of the measure is decisive. |
Important decisions of the Council of State on the subject are as follows:
- Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2022/3819, K. 2022/6673: The appointment of a public official to a lower-ranking position solely on the basis of discretionary power, without any concrete document showing that they were unsuccessful or inadequate in their role, was found unlawful.
- Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2023/1364, K. 2023/3515: The absence of any disciplinary penalty or investigation against the staff member and the failure to present any concrete finding of inadequacy in their role were deemed grounds for annulment.
- Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2024/1513, K. 2024/5320: Removing a staff member whose poor performance had not been proven from a managerial position and reassigning them was found contrary to the public interest and service requirements.
- Council of State, 2nd Chamber, E. 2022/2957, K. 2022/4720: It was held that the opening of an investigation against a public official cannot on its own be grounds for a transfer.
7. Is the Opening of an Investigation Sufficient for Removal and Transfer?
The opening of a judicial or administrative investigation against a civil servant does not on its own justify removal from office or recall to headquarters. There must be a direct link between the subject of the investigation and the nature of the duty, and it must be proven that the staff member remaining in office would jeopardise the investigation.
Imposing a de facto sanction on a public official before the investigation is concluded and before their guilt is established undermines the presumption of innocence. Where it deems it necessary, the administration may resort to measures provided in the legislation such as suspension from duty; however, the duration, scope and proportionality of such measures are also subject to review.
8. Conditions for a Stay of Execution in Administrative Proceedings
In annulment actions brought against decisions on removal from office, change of title or temporary assignment, a stay of execution (Yürütmenin Durdurulması, YD) may be requested. Under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), two conditions must be met together:
- The administrative act must be manifestly unlawful,
- Its implementation must give rise to damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy.
To substantiate the damage in the petition for a stay of execution, attention should be paid to the following points:
- The actual loss of managerial powers and damage to professional reputation,
- Interruption of career development and falling behind peers,
- Loss of financial entitlements such as supplementary payments, executive and duty allowances,
- Disruption of the institutional hierarchy by having the same duty performed by lower-ranking staff.
9. Critical Documents That Should Be in the Case File
In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof and a system of written evidence are fundamental. Gathering the information and documents held by the administration before filing the action determines the course of the case:
- The approval letter for the removal, transfer or temporary assignment and the record of service/receipt,
- Notification records and dates received via EBYS (Electronic Document Management System),
- The staff member’s past appointment decrees, position-grade-title documents and service record,
- Records showing that there is no disciplinary penalty or inquiry against them,
- The institution’s current organisation chart and the distribution of duties within the service unit,
- The position title of the lower-ranking staff member assigned in their place and the legal basis of that assignment,
- Current payslips showing the financial payments cut after the measure.
10. Time Limit for Filing, Competent Court and Implementation of the Judgment
The general time limit for filing actions concerning removal from office and transfer appointments is 60 days from the day following the date on which the act was notified in writing to the person concerned, pursuant to Article 7 of İYUK. If the time limit is missed, the administrative action is dismissed as time-barred.
Competent Judicial Authority in the Alanya Region: In disputes concerning appointments and changes in the place of duty of public personnel working at the Alanya District Governorship, the Alanya District Directorate of National Education, the Alanya District Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry, the Alanya Social Services Centre or other public institutions and bodies located in Alanya, the competent judicial authority under Article 33 of Law No. 2577 is the Antalya Administrative Courts.
Implementation of the Court Judgment (İYUK Art. 28): The administration must comply without delay with stay of execution or annulment decisions issued by the administrative court. This period may in no case exceed 30 days from the notification of the decision to the administration. The administration is obliged to reinstate the staff member to their former duty and managerial rights.
For detailed information on non-implementation of administrative court decisions or extraordinary review procedures, you may refer to our article on extraordinary legal remedies in administrative proceedings.
11. Frequently Asked Questions
Can a branch manager be recalled to headquarters without a concrete reason?
No. The administration’s power of appointment is limited by the public interest and service requirements. Unless there is concrete poor performance, a disciplinary penalty or an organisational necessity, recall to headquarters cannot be based solely on discretionary power.
How does the assignment of lower-ranking staff in their place affect the case?
Removing the actual manager and bringing in someone with the title of section chief or officer clearly proves that the need for a manager in that unit continues. This refutes the administration’s “service requirements” argument and paves the way for annulment of the measure.
Can a stay of execution be obtained against a removal from office?
Yes. Under Article 27 İYUK, a stay of execution is granted where the act is manifestly unlawful and damage that is difficult to remedy arises, such as the loss of managerial authority, damage to reputation or loss of financial entitlements.
What is the time limit for filing an action and when does it start?
The time limit for filing an annulment action is 60 days from the day following the date on which the act was officially notified to the public official.
Where should a civil servant working in Alanya file an action against removal from office?
In personnel and appointment disputes of public officials working in the district of Alanya, the competent court is the Antalya Administrative Courts.
12. Conclusion and Legal Assessment
The powers granted to the administration to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of public services never create an area of unlimited arbitrariness. The rule of law requires the administration to base every act on a concrete public interest, to act proportionately and to uphold the principles of merit. Removing a branch manager on abstract grounds, recalling them to headquarters and assigning lower-ranking staff in their place is a serious administrative act open to judicial review.
To avoid any loss of rights, it is important for public personnel subject to a change of place of duty, recall to headquarters or temporary assignment not to miss the statutory 60-day time limit, to request the administration’s reasons in writing and to conduct the process meticulously. In order to avoid irreparable harm in actions and disputes concerning administrative acts in Alanya and the surrounding area, it is advisable to seek legal advice from a lawyer working in the field of administrative law.
Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.