The Provincial Education Workers' Union brought before the San Luis Superior Court a dispute over the duration and legal nature of teacher appointments made because of a shortage of eligible applicants. UTEP filed an original unconstitutionality action against article 5.4 of the annex to Decree 1592-ME-2026 and requested a non-innovation injunction. The union does not challenge the province's ability to fill posts when compatible candidates are lacking; it objects to a regulation creating an exceptional form that ends automatically with the school year.
The decree regulates teaching posts and classroom hours and addresses cases in which an applicant already holds another paid public job. The provincial constitution generally prohibits holding two state-paid positions, but allows an exception when there is a genuine teacher shortage. Under the disputed mechanism, an applicant may be appointed despite the incompatibility until the end of the school year. The administration therefore seeks to prevent classes or subjects from remaining without a teacher when ordinary calls produce too few candidates.
UTEP argues that the constitutional exception should apply only after the competent body has actually verified the shortage. In the union's view, the exception removes the incompatibility but does not authorise changes to the employment relationship or reduced stability for the underlying vacancy. The distinction is both legal and practical: allowing someone with another public job to occupy a post is different from turning the appointment into an independent temporary category with a mandatory expiry not established by the constitution.
The union says the San Luis Teaching Statute recognises permanent, interim and substitute appointments, but no autonomous “scarcity appointment.” It argues that the decree creates through regulation a category that would require legislation and changes rights defined by a higher-ranking norm. The provincial government must answer whether the phrase merely describes the exceptional reason authorising the appointment or, as the claim alleges, alters its nature. That classification will determine the duration and safeguards that apply.
The most disputed point is automatic termination in December. The rule states that the appointment ends with the school year even when the vacancy continues and the teacher remains needed. UTEP says that fixed date disregards whether the post is interim or substitute and forces a new process without a reason linked to pedagogical continuity. It may also leave the worker without income during recess and create uncertainty for schools organising the start of the following year.
In its main request, the union asks the court to declare the time limit inapplicable and make duration depend on the actual nature of the vacancy. Alternatively, it seeks an interpretation under which scarcity only waives the constitutional incompatibility, without changing statutory categories or imposing an automatic end. The filing reserves a federal claim and asks for costs against the defendant. The injunction is intended to preserve teachers' situations while the merits are litigated.
The urgency is not abstract. In the same week, the Education Ministry opened a new call for posts and included an affidavit on incompatibilities. The union invited teachers affected by the mechanism to submit records and join the claim. If the court grants non-innovation relief, terminations or new appointments under the mode could be suspended until a decision. If it refuses, the system will remain in force while proceedings potentially extend beyond the school calendar.
The Superior Court must first examine admissibility and interim relief before deciding the decree's constitutionality. The province must demonstrate the operational need and that statutory rights are not altered; UTEP must show concrete harm and the normative contradiction it alleges. The ruling will reach beyond teachers appointed this year. It will define how far administrative regulation may go when responding to a real staffing shortage and which safeguards remain for those maintaining continuity of education.
