The fundamental principle of evidence law dictates that one who makes a claim is under an obligation to prove his claim. This principle applies equally in cases brought before Administrative Courts where the complainant, who brings a legal action against the State for its wrongful act, in principle, must prove his case to successfully secure annulment. Thus, an annulment decision can only be made by the Court if it is sufficiently proven that the act of State is unlawful on the basis of failure in its scope (authority), form, reason, object or purpose, or any combination of them. Annulment means determination that has acted in violation of the law. In order for the wrongfulness of the act to be determined, the complainant, who is under a burden of proof and must therefore produce evidence, should be the one whose interests are violated by the act of State. Although local administrative courts, the Council of State (Danıştay) which is entrusted with the judicially review of local court decisions, and since 2014 the Regional Administrative Courts acting as intermediary appeal courts for years considered this principle in cases relating to “unsuccessful applications” as a result of job interviews conducted by the State organs and agents as part of the civil service recruitment procedure, lately however, there has been a radical shift in their well-established case law. In that, the burden of proof is now shifted on the respondent State to prove to the Court that the latter’s act to decide a job application to be unsuccessful as a result of the interview with a candidate is in fact made in full compliance with legal requirements. The present study aims to examine the reasons for such a remarkable change in case law and its implications for the theory and practice of administrative procedural law.