The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling rejecting the case of a university teacher, who objected to the decision to end his service, on the basis that he did not have the qualifications appropriate to the position he held.
In the details, a university teacher filed an administrative claim, demanding that his employer's decision to end his service be canceled, and that he be compensated for the damages incurred.
He said in his lawsuit that he worked for a university as a teacher, and then was assigned to run the Technical Studies Program Center, until he was surprised by the decision to end his service because of the restructuring of the institution.
A first-degree court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit, and the Appeals Court upheld it, and the prosecutor did not accept this ruling, and appealed against it, explaining that the defendant administration had caused the decision to end his restructuring service, and that when he was unfair of the decision, the administration replied that he “does not have the qualifications appropriate to the position he occupies.” In the event that he worked on his job for two years, which indicates the illegality of the decision ».
This appeal was upheld by the Federal Supreme Court, confirming that it was established from the plaintiff’s decision issued by the plaintiff’s work authority that it was based on the reason for the restructuring contained in the Federal Human Resources Law, and that the constant of the defendant’s notes submitted to the Court of Appeal that the administration held that the plaintiff committed An offense against the administration, claiming that the college in which he works does not comply with external academic and professional policies, and he incites employees by sending harmful and false communications with the intention of discrediting the institution, and appeared before the investigation committee that recommended the termination of his service, and accordingly the administration replaced the reason for the accusation Al-Asli saw the reasons that she mentioned in her notes during the consideration of the dispute, so the trial court had to consider these facts in light of what was raised by the administration and inferred it, but the preliminary ruling supporting the appeal judgment on its reasons did not understand this and he went on to judge that the administration had not renewed the employment contract in any A time for non-disciplinary reasons, in the public interest.
He added that the issuance of the decision was when the administration found that the plaintiff’s job cost him additional fees, and that he does not have sufficient qualifications to fill this position that requires special qualifications, which are foundations that have no basis, no indication or text, with the reasons stipulated in the original decision, nor the reasons that The administration mentioned it in its answer, which defects the ruling in violation of the law, which must be reversed.
The university teacher was assigned to run the Technical Studies Program Center, then he was surprised by the decision to end his service due to the restructuring.