GPS: the Court of Cassation amends the algorithm for substitute teaching posts

The Court of Cassation (judgement 18156/2026) has clarified that a teacher included in the provincial rankings for substitute teaching (GPS) who do not indicate all available posts in their online application do not lose the right to be called up for those posts they have actually chosen and which may become available in subsequent appointment rounds. The waiver, in fact, applies exclusively to preferences not expressed.

The decision addresses an issue that has given rise to extensive litigation and conflicting interpretations in the courts in recent years. At the heart of the matter lies the functioning of the algorithm used to allocate annual substitute teaching posts.
According to the interpretation adopted by the school administration, a teacher who, when it was their turn to be appointed, had not indicated all available posts and did not secure a position, was also excluded from subsequent stages of the procedure. In this way, any posts that subsequently became available could be allocated to candidates with lower scores.
However, the Court of Cassation has rejected this interpretation. The judges emphasise that the text of the ministerial order expressly limits the effect of the waiver to only those posts not indicated by the candidate. There is, however, no legal basis for extending this effect to posts that were requested and subsequently became available.

The Supreme Court also refers to the constitutional principles of reasonableness and the proper functioning of the public administration, pointing out that it would be illogical to penalise an applicant who has clearly expressed an interest in specific locations. Such an interpretation would also undermine the meritocratic principle governing school rankings, allowing candidates with lower scores to be placed ahead of others.

The legal principle set out by the Court is of particular significance. Failure to indicate certain posts simply means that the teacher waives those specific preferences. If, in a given round, only posts that have not been requested are available, the teacher will not be appointed. However, they retain the right to apply for any posts that may become available at a later date.