對於公務人員任用案之銓敘審定，銓敘主管機關所為之審查，其審查權之範圍，究係僅限於合法性審查而不及於合目的性審查，還是兩者兼具，我國現行公務人員任用法並未明文規定。於人事行政實務上發生爭執而進入訴訟程序者甚少，一個典型的指標性案件──最高行政法院一○七年度判字第五二二號判決──法院於判決理由中提出了看法，認為依現行公務人員任用法之規定以及人事行政之事務本質，銓敘主管機關對任用案之銓敘審定之審查權，其可審查之範圍，僅限於合法性審查，不及於合目的性審查。然而，事實果真是如此嗎？為探討該等疑義事項，本文藉由此一指標性案件，進行深入的分析探討，以釐清該等疑義事項。同時提出銓敘主管機關對公務人員任用案所為銓敘審定審查，其審查權可行使之範圍之基本圖像，並提出相關的修法建議。

The qualification review of civil servant appointment cases conducted by the competent authority of civil service involves the legality review and fit-for-purpose review. However, whether the scope of its review authority is limited to the legality review rather than policy (fit-for-purpose) review, or whether to use both, is not expressly stipulated in the Civil Service Appointment Act in Taiwan. In the practice of personnel administration, there are rare cases in which disputes have been submitted for the litigation procedures. The Supreme Administrative Court Decision No. 522 in 2018 is one significant case which held that, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Appointment Act and the principle of nature of things in personnel administration, the review authority deemed competent to conduct the qualification review of each appointment cases is limited to the legality review and does not include the policy review. However, is the practice truly a precedent case? In order to research these doubtful matters, this article use this significant decision to conduct an in-depth analysis and provide discussions to clarify these uncertain matters. It puts forward the basic image as to the scope of qualification review for the appointment of public servants by the competent authority. This article also provides suggestions for amendments to laws and regulations.