TESTO DELLA SENTENZA:
FATTO
Il sig. Cocco riferisce di essere dipendente del Ministero dell’Interno – Dipartimento della Protezione Civile e dei Servizi Antincendio (Corpo Nazionale dei VV.FF.) e di essere inquadrato nel profilo di ‘capo squadra’ (posizione economica B2).
Riferisce, altresì, che con circolare in data 7 luglio 2005 il Capo Dipartimento comunicava l’indizione di un bando di concorso a 326 posti nel profilo di capo reparto con decorrenza 1° gennaio 2005 (posizione economica B3), riservato al personale interno già inquadrato nella qualifica di capo squadra.
La lex specialis della procedura stabiliva che l’accesso al profilo di capo reparto sarebbe avvenuto all’esito di uno specifico corso di qualificazione cui si poteva accedere sulla base di una graduatoria per titoli e che la scelta delle sedi sarebbe avvenuta sulla base della graduatoria finale.
Specifiche disposizioni regolavano l’esercizio della facoltà di rinunzia alla sede assegnata, nonché la decadenza dall’assegnazione.
Con decreto in data 13 dicembre 2005 veniva stabilito che il numero dei posti da assegnare all’esito della procedura per cui è causa fosse aumentato sino a 376 posti (di cui 329 da operatore ‘generico’, al pari dell’odierno appellante).
In pari data veniva pubblicata la graduatoria di merito che vedeva il sig. Cocco collocato nella posizione n. 772.
Nel dicembre del 2005 aveva luogo anche la procedura di scelta delle sedi e in tale occasione avveniva che molti candidati utilmente collocati rinunziassero alla posizione cui, pure, avrebbero was not entitled to have found a welcome home among those available.
result of these waivers (and the resulting ranking of merit), the last place on the operator 'generic' was assigned to correspond to the position of rank n. 750.
At the end of the training, only 292 candidates were placed in the capacity of head of department and allocated to their chosen locations. Therefore, it was not assigned (376-292 =) 84 posts of head of department (later increased up to 87).
Under the lex specialis the procedure, so fill the vacant seats should be allocated after sliding the list
appears from the file that on June 8, 2006 the Head of the Department had to issue a procedure for department heads extraordinary mobility, based on the recognition of places available.
The act of calling the procedure also states that " on the basis of the aforementioned survey, the Administration will also proceed to the coverage of the 87 seats remained unfilled at the end of the insolvency proceedings to head with effect from 1.1.2005, by scrolling on the list. "
Following completion of the extraordinary mobility procedure (posed by the outcome of which some head had been occupied and others were available), the industry leader reiterated that the 87 seats remained unfilled following the conclusion bankruptcy department head would have been allocated by scrolling the list of suitable candidates and the same is provided a survey of sites thus attributable to (instrument dated July 31, 2006).
However, with the measure on October 9, 2006 (subject to legal challenge under the promo trial) the Head of the Department represented that, following the extraordinary mobility procedure opened in June of that year, were made available " new locations (...) that can be chosen for the coverage of 87 seats remained unfilled at the end of the insolvency proceedings to head - as from 1 January 2005 .
Therefore, the Head of the Department stated that " the vacancies are reserved for the staff in the ranking list for admission to the course of the procedure to 326 posts of head of department (...) which, for various reasons, did not choose the location, including dropouts at the choice of venue .
The determination was burdened by Mr. Coconut and other candidates with hierarchical recourse, the Administration rejected considering nullifying the fact that the seats for the occasion on 9 October 2006 were nuovi e diversi rispetti a quelli del concorso a capo reparto a suo tempo bandito.
In particolare, afferma il decreto decisorio che “ l’assegnazione dei posti rimasti vacanti al termine della procedura concorsuale sopraccitata non ha avuto luogo mediante scorrimento della graduatoria degli idonei, in quanto il sistema avrebbe sfavorito i candidati che, utilmente collocati nella graduatoria, avevano già operato la scelta sulla base della precedente ricognizione delle sedi. Si è ritento quindi [con l’atto impugnato] di coinvolgere nella procedura di scelta tutto il personale di cui alla graduatoria di ammissione al corso che, a vario titolo, aveva rinunciato, tenuto conto che le sedi da assegnare sono emerged as a result of a subsequent survey and are therefore distinct from those under which he had held the previous procedure for choosing the place (...) That said, the richietsa the applicants to proceed to the coverage of the 87 seats remained unfilled by scrolling the list No position 751, can not be accepted, because, as the new headquarters, would be detrimental to the assignment policy based on the order of ranking .
Accordingly, the applicants made an application through official channels in the Lazio Regional Administrative Court alleging the illegality of the decision on remedy executioner, is the underlying instrument dated October 9, 2006.
Tuttavia, con la setnenza oggetto del presente appello il Tribunale amministrativo respingeva il ricorso e confermava la correttezza dell’operato dell’Amministrazione, osservando che “ l’Amministrazione non ha proceduto allo scorrimento della graduatoria perché le sedi vacanti non facevano parte di quelle originariamente messe a concorso.
E poiché solo per queste ultime era stata prevista l’assegnazione mediante scorrimento della graduatoria, era sua facoltà indire una nuova procedura di mobilità ad hoc, basata su criteri di scelta e di distribuzione differenti rispetto a quelli stabiliti nel precedente bando di concorso ”.
La pronuncia in questione veniva gravata in sede di appello dal sig. Cocco, il quale ne chiedeva l’integrale riforma articolando plurimi motivi di doglianza.
All’udienza pubblica del 12 ottobre 2010 la causa veniva trattenuta in decisione.
DIRITTO
1. Giunge alla decisione del Collegio il ricorso in appello proposto da un ‘capo squadra’ del Corpo Nazionale dei VV.FF. avverso la sentenza del Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio con cui è stato respinto il ricorso avverso i provvedimenti con cui il Ministero dell’Interno ha disposto di riservare a diverse categorie di personale (escludendo l’odierno appellante) la scelta fra 87 posti vacanti di ‘capo reparto’ resisi available on the outcome of a competitive process initiated in 2005.
2. With a first complaint Mr. Cocco complains that the sentence is worthy of reform for the first judge erred in finding that the places referred to as 'new' part of the circular 8060/2006 were not part of those originally put out to tender.
According to the appellant, in fact, so ruling, the Administrative Court erred in failing to consider that most (87) locations indicated in the circular mentioned coincide with those that remain unallocated outcome of the procedure which had Mr participated. Coconut and that the (few) differences were due solely to changes determinatesi a result of the extraordinary mobility procedures took place in 2006, which had resulted in the occupation of certain sites and the provision of other locations.
Again, the appellant complains that the sentence in question has failed to consider the incongruity of the work of the Administration which,
- after having given (so to speak 'in the first instance') the premises referred to 'original procedure Data7 opened in July 2005;
- having taken note of the sacrifices made on that occasion by the best placed candidate, who had elected not to promotion so as not to be transferred to a home and unwelcome
- after having replaced the places available so residuanti through procedures for extraordinary mobility,
had finally resolved to give him 87 places further residuanti (not offering them to those who - like Mr. Cocco - were still qualified to this, as candidates on the list in the original procedure, but) by offering to persons who would become entitled to any such award for having expressly waived or to be had been dismissed.
2. The reason is worthy of acceptance.
2.1. In particular, the Board notes that what was held by the Administration in its circular dated October 9, 2006 (and subsequent acts challenged at first instance) is a total contrast with the rules governing the selection procedure started on July 7, 2005, do not look right choice to allocate the 87 seats residuanti a result of mobility procedures in favor of persons who were deemed to have renounced it has not made the choice of location, or to have expressly waived in the competition.
Thus, the Administration has made a substantial violation of the rules of the selection procedure which he had in his time with, has substantially re-admitted to the allocation dei posti taluni soggetti i quali non potevano – per diverse ragioni – essere più considerati titolati a concorrere alle opportunità di cui alla più volte richiamata procedura comparativa.
L’Amministrazione appellata (con rilievo fatto proprio dal primo giudice) ha giustificato la scelta in base alla considerazione secondo cui, laddove non si fosse operato nel richiamato modo, si sarebbero nella sostanza svantaggiati i soggetti meglio collocati in graduatoria i quali paradossalmente non avrebbero potuto concorrere all’attribuzione dei posti ( rectius : delle sedi) in astratto più ambite, le quali si fossero rese disponibili a seguito degli avvicendamenti verificatisi a seguito delle extraordinary mobility procedures initiated during 2006.
However, the Board considered here, the observation can not justify the actions of the Administration, if we consider that (as revealed during the proceedings) as a result of the shifts determinatisi called mobility procedures had affected a number however, reduced job positions (which were unchanged in the total number - 87 - with changes based on only 21 places on the 87 still available).
It follows that the outcome of the extraordinary mobility procedures (procedures that, strictly speaking, the administration was also not required to initiate because of the combination of a competitive process which - in theory - could cover some of the same seats to be allocated) is not essentially legitimized the Administration to reopen the selection procedure in favor of parties who had been excluded by its own action.
A grant all, in fact, the work of the Administration would have been acceptable if, after changing the mapping of available seats as a result of the extraordinary mobility procedures (with occupancy of sites and release of others), it was decided to rendered unavailable the sun (and limited) locations really ' new' respect to those offered at the time, reserving the latter (and only these) staff now excluded from the selection procedure, by using procedures which fall outside the list is still valid.
On the contrary, what is totally inexcusable is that the Administration has resolved to overturn 'running' the rules of the selection procedure: to ) whereas 'new' for a list of sites for the most part coincides with the consequent the allocation of the first 292 seats, and b) reallocations (net - so to speak - 'competition') all the available seats in favor di soggetti i quali si erano scientemente e per fatto proprio posti al di fuori della procedura selettiva in senso proprio, in tal modo consumando il proprio potere di scelta in relazione alla stragrande maggioranza di tali sedi le quali, pure, erano già state loro offerte in via prioritaria in ragione della migliore posizione di graduatoria.
3. Per le ragioni esposte il ricorso va accolto e conseguentemente, in riforma della sentenza oggetto di gravame, deve essere accolto il ricorso proposto in primo grado dal Cocco, con conseguente annullamento degli atti in tal sede impugnati, nei limiti dell’interesse del ricorrente (ossia, per la sola parte in cui tali atti avevano impedito in concreto all’odierno appellante di operare a choice of venues available merchandise the ranking in which he was properly placed)
The Board considers that there are good reasons, related to the complexity of the case to provide for full compensation for the costs of litigation between the parties.
PQM
definitively pronouncing on appeal, as suggested in the epigraph, and welcomed him to the effect, to the judgment burdened, it annuls the contested measures in first aid, according to the interest of the applicant.
offset expenses.
Order that the above is carried out by the administrative authority.
