本文主要採用內容分析法，彙整中央與地方政府關於國民中小學外聘兼任、代理與代課教師的法規範，從行政法學的觀點，探討特定市縣訂定兼任、代課及代理教師聘任之自治法規有關「禁聘退休教師」明文規定之適法性。市縣政府基於地方自治、辦理教育事務之必要，雖得訂定自治法規，以供所屬各級學校聘用非專任教師之行事準據；然自治法規並無創設或變更法律之效力，其訂定既不得逾越法律優位原則，亦不得牴觸母法或對於人民之自由權利增加法律所無之限制。禁聘規定對於退休教師而言，非僅止於「限制」工作權，甚已達「剝奪」工作權之地步，其適法與合憲性，恐有疑慮。在衡平退休教師與其他非專任教師的工作權、尋求中央與地方政府關於退休教師再就業規範一致性的前提下，本文建議適度修正特定市縣禁聘退休教師之規定。

This study tried to use content analysis and aggregate central and local government’ regulations about employing part-time, agency and substitute teachers, discussed the legality of regulations concerning retired teachers employment restrictions of specific local governments’ public elementary and secondary school from the viewpoint of administrative law. Based on local autonomy, local governments could set regulations for executing educational affairs and offering the standards to public elementary and secondary schools. But local autonomy regulations don’t create or change legal validity and their setting doesn’t pass over “the Principle of Legal Priority”, doesn’t both contradict parent law and increase the limit that laws never stipulate. For retired teachers, employment restrictions could limit their power to work, even deprive their power to work also. Legality and constitutionality of regulations above could be questionable. Under the premises regarding balance between right to work of both retired teachers and non-full-time teachers, seeking the regulative consistence of retired teachers’ re-employment between central and local governments, this study suggested to amend moderately regulations of retired teachers employment restriction regarding specific local governments.