Intervenção judicial em concursos públicos: limites à análise de questões pelo judiciário

Abstract

The work analyzes judicial intervention in public examinations, particularly considering the possibility of annulling questions. Public examinations constitute a constitutional guarantee and an instrument for the effective implementation of the principles of legality, impartiality, and equality; therefore, it is in the public interest that the examination is conducted in a regular and transparent manner. The objective is to evaluate the limits of such intervention in altering the answer keys of questions. The methodology applied is bibliographic and jurisprudential research. Bibliographic research is conducted regarding public examinations, their history and legal provisions, in addition to considering them as a set of administrative acts. Following this, the research addresses the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court, summarized in Theme 485. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of Ceará is also analyzed for the years 2023, 2024, and the first semester of 2025, using a quantitative method, proceeding with a brief exposition of the decisions and consequences generated. This study examines, using a quantitative method, the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), regarding the annulment of public examination questions, using all available rulings from the Court's jurisprudence database. The results demonstrate that adopting the inter partes effect in cases of judicial annulment of exam questions, as has been the practice in the studied courts, violates equality, encourages herd mentality, generating successive lawsuits, and allows an act tainted by judicially recognized nullity to continue affecting all other candidates who were not part of the litigation. The advent of Topic 485 was not effective in reducing the multiplication of lawsuits, although it was used as defensive jurisprudence, preventing the control of administrative acts when illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the organizing committee is present. Greater transparency is needed at the administrative level on the part of the organizing committee, with the need for reasoned disclosure of exam correction criteria to reduce the need for litigation.