自1984年司法院大法官作成釋字第187號解釋以降，發展迄今，大法官藉由一連串判例法之堆砌，針對傳統上歸屬特別權力關係之各個行政領域，逐步勾畫出具有直接外部效力與司法救濟可能性之法律關係部分，相關之解釋字號尤以涉公務員關係者為最。此不僅根本扭轉行政法院舊有之消極態度，更又促成我國公務人員保障法制之建立，公務員之法律地位與司法保障無疑地已獲長足進展。然而，大法官解釋之「重大影響」準則以及現行公務人員保障法制，仍依循「基礎關係」與「管理關係」二分法之理論脈絡，將不具行政處分性質之人事行政行為排除在行政訴訟之外。此不僅不利於行政處分理論之正常發展，且亦忽視機關內部措施同應受到基本權利和其他憲法規範之拘束，更與現行行政訴訟審判權概括條款之宗旨背道而馳。惟自2008年以來，大法官藉釋字第653、691、684號解釋，相繼就看守所羈押關係、監獄行刑關係和大學生在學關係，明白放棄「重大影響」之一貫立場，顯露憲法解釋路線終將改弦易轍之曙光。職是，本文乃藉由引介德國學說與實務關於公務員職務調動之發展脈絡，以期我國終能徹底剷除特別權力關係尚餘之殘垣斷壁。在職務調動措施之諸多類型中，本文論述首重不同機關間之「調職處分」以及同一機關內之「職務調整」。

Ever since the ground-breaking Interpretation No. 187 in 1984, the Grand Justices have in a series of Interpretations gradually made inroads into the various areas under the traditional ”besonderes Gewaltverhältnis”. Specifically, the Grand Justices have in the process identified those legal relationships that have a direct external aspect thus shall be provided with judicial remedies, among which the most important one being the legal relationship between the public functionaries and state. These developments have not only rectified the pre-existing passive attitude held by the administrative courts, but also contributed to the better protection of the status of public servants, in particular in terms of their access to judicial remedies. However, the ”serious impact” test taken in Grand Justices Interpretations, as well as the approach in the current public functionary protection system, still follows a dichotomy between ”the basic relationship” (”Grundverhältnis”) and ”the management relationship” (”Betriebsverhältnis”), in accordance with which a personnel decision that does not involve an administrative act (Verwaltungsakt) is immune from administrative litigation. This approach is detrimental to the development of the administrative act doctrine, and contradicts the principle that internal administrative decisions are also subject to the protection offered by the fundamental rights and other constitutional norms. However, signs of change have been shown in more recent constitutional interpretations with regard to relations between the detainee and the detention authorities (Interpretation No. 653), between the inmate and the prison authorities (Interpretation No. 691) and between the student and the universities (No. 684), in which the Grand Justices did not apply the ”serious impact” test. In the above light, this article intends to discuss the juridical nature of transfer of duties as the concept has been developed in doctrines and practice in Germany, with an aim to eradicating the remaining influences of the ”besonderes Gewaltverhältnis” doctrine in the administrative law of Taiwan, as identified above. Among the types of ”transfer of duties”, emphasis is put on inter-agency ”reassignment order” (Versetzung) and intra-agency ”transfer of duties” (Umsetzung).