Non-entry into appeal due to insufficient reasoning against non-processing of a recusal request and non-entry into a request for revision in non-promotion proceedings

Facts

The subject of the proceedings is an appeal against the order of the single judge at the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dated 15 March 2019 (RG.2019.00003). The appellant is the father of a pupil affected by a non-promotion.

By order of 11 July 2014, the appellant's daughter was not promoted to the third year of the Literargymnasium Rämibühl. The Education Directorate of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal lodged against this by order of 16 April 2015. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal filed by the parents by judgment of 15 July 2015, which was not contested.

On 15 March 2019, the single judge at the Administrative Court did not enter into a recusal request submitted by the appellant, that is, he did not process it, and did not enter into the request for revision.

By submission of 20 April 2019, the appellant applied to the Federal Supreme Court. He requested the annulment, or a finding of nullity, of the order of 15 March 2019 and of the judgment of 15 July 2015, as well as the recusal of the judges involved. No exchange of written submissions was ordered.

Considerations

In subsequent administrative proceedings, the subject matter of the dispute can in principle only be narrowed, not expanded. The object of challenge in the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court is therefore only the order of 15 March 2019, and not the judgment of 15 July 2015, which has become formally final.

The reasoning of a submission must set out in concise form how the challenged act violates the law (Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 FSCA). It must be relevant to the matter and engage with the considerations of the lower court that are decisive for the decision. The appellant's submission contains no statements on the non-processing of the recusal request or on the non-entry into the request for revision. There is therefore manifestly a lack of sufficient reasoning for the appeal (Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b FSCA).

The nullity of a decision must be taken into account ex officio at any time and may also be established in appeal proceedings. The appellant's complaint that the order of 15 March 2019 is null and void is unfounded. The alleged defect, namely that repeating the ninth year is not…