| There are a large number of procedural legislative gaps in the field of administrative litigation in college educational administration,which leads to the lack of substantive legal norms in the review of the administrative behavior of colleges and universities in the procedural legitimacy.Our country is a statute country,and judges cannot actively create new legal norms through referee cases as judges in the United States and the United States.However,in recent years,with the continuous emergence of a large number of administrative litigation cases in colleges and universities,the court has to exert limited judicial initiative and seek the basis of refereeing from the outside of the law.Since the trial court of Tian Yong v.Beijing University of Science and Technology has used the principle of due process for the first time to decide the case,the number of appearances of the due process principle in the administrative litigation of higher education is increasing.However,as an unwritten legal principle,whether the principle of due process can be used as the basis for the court’s judgment is still controversial in our country.It is a very worthwhile question to apply the court to apply the principle of due process principle in the administrative management litigation of colleges and universities.Aiming at this problem,this paper firstly classifies the administrative litigation cases in colleges and universities based on the retrieval and collation of the colleges and universities in the field of administrative litigation.At the same time,the cases involving student status management and the cases involving degree management are taken as research objects.By combing and studying the relevant judgments of these two types of cases,this paper analyzes the current situation of the application of due process principles in the trial of college education administrative cases.This paper finds that the application of the principle of due process in the field of administrative litigation in colleges and universities has problems such as inconsistent starting standards,narrow scope of examination,unclear definition of “procedural flaws”,and insufficient argumentation of due process principles. |