A possible concise summary is:
The speaker tells the story of how his mother was harmed by a public competition for a city hall job, where a candidate who was behind her in the ranking was hired instead of her. He suspects that the candidate had some influence or connection with someone powerful in the city hall, and that he received a salary above the normal range. His mother opened a case to seek justice, but it took 10 years and the result was unsatisfactory. The judge ruled that the candidate had the right to be hired because he turned 60 years old during the process, which is a tiebreaker criterion. However, the speaker argues that this criterion should only apply until the last day of registration for the competition, not after. He feels that his mother wasted time and energy, and that the candidate was rewarded for his wrongdoing. He questions the fairness and transparency of the public contest and the legal system.
Here are the key facts extracted from the text:
1. The text is about a public competition for city hall jobs in Brazil that was allegedly rigged in favor of a candidate who had connections and influence.
2. The author's mother participated in the competition and was placed 537th, while the favored candidate was placed 556th, according to the original notice published in 2010.
3. In 2012, the favored candidate was hired after passing in front of 100 candidates, including the author's mother, based on a tiebreaker criterion that considered his age of 60 years old at the time of the summons notice, not at the time of registration for the competition.
4. The author's mother opened a case against the city hall and the favored candidate, but it took 10 years to get a sentence that was supposedly in her favor.
5. The sentence was actually a lie, as it only fired the favored candidate who was already retired, and did not compensate the author's mother or any other harmed candidates.
6. The favored candidate also received a salary above the normal limit for his position of administrative agent, and had four relatives who worked in public bodies, one of them with great power of influence.
7. The author found all this information from a Transparency Portal website that provided data on public employees and properties.
8. The author questions the judge's decision and the justice system that allowed this situation to happen and go unpunished.